employee learning and the institutionalization of …
TRANSCRIPT
EMPLOYEE LEARNING AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ETHICS
by
MARIANNE F. FOOTE
(Under the Direction of Wendy Ruona)
ABSTRACT
The concept of integrating ethics in the workplace has been traditionally closely
associated with federal compliance and regulations. There has been less focus on ways
employees learn ethics, which is critical to institutionalize ethics and build more ethical
organizations. In this study, an interpretive qualitative design was implemented using
interviews to explore ways employees learn ethics at work. Purposeful sampling was
used in the selection of the organization and the participants representing senior leaders,
directors, and managers.
The data analysis revealed four key themes, which led to three primary
conclusions. The conclusions drawn from the findings suggest that informal and
incidental learning, experiential learning and self-directed learning as the primary modes
of learning ethics at work. Second, organizational systems were critical to support and
solidify learning, especially as learning became increasingly self-directed. Finally, this
study found that organizational culture actively promotes ethics and clearly fosters
continued and enhanced learning around ethics. Implications for the practice and research
for the field of HRD are presented.
EMPLOYEE LEARNING AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ETHICS
by
MARIANNE F. FOOTE
B.S., Ball State University, 1979
M.S., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1992
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2009
EMPLOYEE LEARNING AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ETHICS
by
MARIANNE F. FOOTE
Major Professor: Wendy Ruona
Committee: Laura Bierema Janette Hill Thomas Holland
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2009
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my two best friends: my husband Gary and my son Taylor.
Thank you for your unwavering support, your understanding, and your energy in life. I
love you both so much. I would also like to say a special thanks to my sisters Kathy
Harrison, Elaine Sutton, and Carolyn Reffeitt. Thanks for exercising good listening skills
and always being there for me. Finally, I would like to recognize the contributions of my
mom and dad, Mary and Frank Ferraro who have passed on but have left me with the
inspiration to always do my best.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Wendy E. A. Ruona for selecting me as one of her advisees.
You were my professor in the first class I took in the fall of 2001. I have always been
impressed over the years with your energy, spirit, and enthusiasm you demonstrate. I
thank you for pushing me to do better and appreciated your candidness and drive to help
me through to the end. I hope we can remain friends and colleagues for years to come.
I would like to thank Laura Bierema, Thomas Holland, Talmadge Guy, and Janette
Hill for serving on my committee. Thank you for your time you spent reading my work
and for your professional guidance.
I would like to thank Sam Lim for helping me secure a wonderful site to conduct
my research. I admire you, and respect your work ethic and all the admirable things you
do for our community. And thank you for allowing Elaine Bramson to be my ‘personal
assistant’ during the time I collected my data. Elaine helped to make my experience fun
and exciting.
Lastly, I would like to thank all my friends that have listened to me and supported
me all these years. A big hug and thank you go to my two special colleagues and friends
who started the program with me in fall of 2001, Rachelle Lehner and Laura Brown.
Thank you for your support throughout the final months of my journey. And many,
many, many thanks for my friends who did not forget me; thank you Laura and Ed
Murphy, Susan and Bob Chitty, Carol and Rich Rhodes, Cindy and Jeff Babka, Ellen and
vi
Gari Tarulli, Elizabeth and David Hentz, Beth Elsey, Scott Hutchinson, and Kristen Sapp.
You will always be special and dear to me.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
Institutionalization & Ethics: Moving Beyond Reactive Approaches ...3
HRD and Ethics in Organizations ..........................................................6
Problem Statement ...............................................................................10
Purpose of Study ..................................................................................12
Significance of Study ...........................................................................12
Definition of Term ...............................................................................14
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................16
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................16
Ethics....................................................................................................17
Institutionalization of Ethics ................................................................41
Adult Learning Theories ......................................................................56
Relevance of HRD and Ethics in the Workplace .................................77
Summary of Chapter ............................................................................83
viii
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................86
Design of the Study ..............................................................................86
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................89
Sample Selection ..................................................................................90
Data Collection ....................................................................................93
Data Analysis .......................................................................................96
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................103
4 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................104
The Company .....................................................................................105
The Participants .................................................................................105
Overview of Findings ........................................................................113
Finding One: Formal Compliance and Ethic Programs and
Activities .......................................................................................115
Finding Two: Other Ways Participants Learned Ethics ....................128
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................138
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ...........................140
Summary of the Study .......................................................................140
Conclusions and Discussion ..............................................................142
Implications for Practice ....................................................................155
Implications and Recommendations for Theory and Research .........158
Limitations .........................................................................................162
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................163
ENDNOTE .......................................................................................................................165
ix
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................166
APPENDICES
A CONSENT FORM ......................................................................................177
B HOW EMPLOYEES LEARN ETHICS IN THE WORKPLACE..............179
C STATEMENT OF SUBJECTIVITY ..........................................................182
D CODING SCHEME ....................................................................................185
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Predominant Ethics Theories: Teleology..........................................................28
Table 2.2: Predominant Ethics Theories: Deontology .......................................................36
Table 2.3: Typology of Selected Institutionalization of Ethics Frameworks ....................52
Table 4.1: Participant Demographics ...............................................................................106
Table 4.2: How Participants Learned Ethics in the Workplace .......................................114
Table 4.3: How Participants Learned Ethics in the Workplace .......................................116
Table 4.4: How Participants Learned Ethics in the Workplace .......................................129
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Employee Life Cycle Model ...........................................................................44
Figure 2.2: Best Practices for Improving an Organization’s Ethical Climate or Culture ..49
Figure 2.3: Dimensions of Self-Directed Learning............................................................69
Figure 2.4: Reconceptualized Informal and Incidental Learning Model ...........................70
Figure 2.5: Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Model ...................................................74
Figure 3.1: Ruona’s Data Management Table for Analysis ..............................................98
Figure 4.1: Pool of Support System .................................................................................128
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade the escalation of unethical conduct in corporate America has
caused an ethical crisis in the United States and it continues to plague the United States.
From 2001 to 2004 alone, the country witnessed a parade of public corporations (Enron,
Global Crossing, HealthSouth, Tyco and other) whose leaders’ unethical decisions, lack
of integrity and abuse of power collapsed companies and negatively impacted countless
people. The monetary cost of unethical behavior in United States corporations is
estimated to be 3 trillion annually (Hatcher, 2002). Even worse, the loss of trust and
confidence by the public in corporate leadership has spiked while the media continues to
disclose scandalous activities in organizations (Tichy & McGill, 2003; Sims, 2003).
Societal expectations of organizations to behave ethically and responsibly have,
thus, risen significantly (Hatcher, 2002; Sims, 2003) and have triggered a sense of
urgency to “restore an ethics consciousness in the workplace” (Sims, 2003, p. 299).
Recent literature has begun to provide evidence that ethics impacts the success or failure
of an organization (Clark & Lattal, 1993; Hatcher, 2002; Paine, 1997; Sims, 2003) and
clearly affects an organization’s “reputational capital” (Worden, 2003, p. 1).
Moreover, the historic passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act in 2002 sent a
serious message to public corporations by mandating ethical codes for leadership, strict
financial reporting protocols, board oversight mechanisms, and guaranteed protection for
whistle-blowers and directors (see http://www.soxlaw.com/ for more detail). A survey of
2
corporate boards released by the RHR (Rohrer, Hibler, and Repogle) International and
Directorship (2004) revealed annual SOX compliance costs averaged $16 million per
corporation (http://www.accountingnet.com, 2009). While costly, it has certainly
stimulated many organizations to begin ethics programs and centralize the coordination
of the organization’s ethics initiatives (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006). Early surveys
indicate that the investment is making a positive difference. The National Business Ethics
Survey® (NBES, 2005) reported that organizations have increased steps toward
improving ethics in the workplace. The survey reported “… since 1994 written standards
of conduct were up by 19%; training on ethics had risen 32%; mechanisms to seek ethics
advice or information was up 15%; means to report misconduct anonymously was up 7%;
and discipline of employees who violate ethical standards was up 4% (p. iv). Also, a
recent survey regarding ethics practices in the workplace indicated that 75% of the
respondents indicated their organizations were increasing ethics training and revamping
existing programs (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).
There are also promising trends in other contexts in the United States that indicate
that increased attention is being paid to ethics in organizations. For instance, since 1992
the Ethics and Compliance Officers Association (ECOA) membership has grown from
twelve members to over a thousand members (ECOA, 2006). Similar growth can also be
seen in ardent endeavors of organizations such as the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) a
non-profit organization dedicated to supporting organizational ethics and ethics research.
In addition to offering ethics advice and tools for implementing ethics in an organization
based on ERC research, the ERC is responsible for the National Business Ethics
Surveys® that are published biennially and are the most rigorous longitudinal research
3
effort in the United States, polling more than 10,000 American workers. This survey is
widely viewed as “a premier resource that tracks national trends in organizational ethics
from the worker’s perspectives” (ERC, 2009, p. 1). Although most of the research
generated by the ERC has been quantitative, with the increasing interest in ethics, the
ERC is expanding their research agenda to include qualitative research (ERC, 2009).
Other trends include business schools exploring better ways to prepare business
and management students for handling ethical dilemmas they will be faced with in
business life (Sims, 2002; Taft & White, 2007), and a noticeable increase of scholarly
research tied to ethical behavior and organizational performance (Paine, 1997; Taft &
White, 2007; Trevino, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006).
Institutionalization & Ethics: Moving Beyond Reactive Approaches
Even with the promising trends afoot, though, organizations still have a long
journey ahead of them. The NBES® (2007) reported, “Few comprehensive ethics and
compliance programs are in place… only one in four companies have a well-
implemented ethics and compliance program” (p. 3). Further, although the results of the
2007 NBES® revealed that companies are beginning to move beyond a singular
commitment to complying with laws and regulations and that formal program activity is
rising, it is also found that “…positive outcomes expected from effective programs either
remains unchanged or shows a decline” (p. iv).
These results clearly pointed to how critical it is to move beyond programs and
initiatives and towards the adoption of an ethical culture. The NBES® reports that “By
many indications in this research, what seems to matter most is the extent to which
leaders intentionally make ethics a part of their daily conversations and decision-making,
4
supervisors emphasize integrity when working with their direct reports, and peers
encourage each other to act ethically” (ERC, 2007, p. v). Furthermore, Trevino (2007)
suggests, “…successful ethics management depends less on formal ethics programs and
more on employees’ fairness perceptions, ethical leadership at all levels, and the
alignment of multiple formal and informal cultural systems to support ethical conduct”
(ERC, p. 1).
For this, scholars agree that institutionalizing ethics in organizations is prudent
and indeed necessary (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006; Hatcher, 2002; Paine, 1997; Sims,
2003). The institutionalization of ethics refers to making ethics in an organization a
permanent part of the organization’s daily practice or normal functioning (Cummings &
Worley, 2000; Sims, 2003). That is, ethics are “hardwired” (Schlesinger, 2003, p. 6) into
the organization and become a permanent part of the organizational culture at all levels of
the organization. In a recent report, the ERC (2009) suggests that “An ethics program that
exists on paper, but never in the hearts, minds, and actions of the organization’s
employees creates a breeding ground for violations” (p. 60). Institutionalization involves
the work of creating a culture that ensures ethics is a foundational component of the
organization’s values and actions.
Organizations that are striving to institute ethics in the workplace must implement
formal programs which address policies, procedures, and practices that communicate the
importance of ethics and they must provide resources for employees to handle related
ethics issues and problems (ERC, 2005; NBES, 2005; Sims, 2003). They must also
ensure that ethics is enmeshed in strategic, organizational, financial, and legal issues of
5
an organization. To do this, ethics must cease to be perceived by leaders as a “frill or
costly diversion”, but rather “…a fundamental duty of leadership” (Paine, 1997, p. 1).
Although progress is being made, institutionalization, like any kind of any major
organizational and/or cultural change, is complex and demands a great deal of support
from leadership and resources. Sims (2003) suggests the key to institutionalizing ethics is
“…by first recognizing and then managing key variables, such as organizational
commitment, strong ethical culture, management’s role, creating an environment that
encourages whistle-blowing, and structuring an ethics enforcement system” (p. 243).
Navern (2003) suggests formal organizational systems are required for instituting ethics
in the workplace such as policies and procedures that explicitly define employee
expectations and behavior reflected in codes of conduct, statements of values, and ethics
policies. Further, ethics oversight committees, ethics “help lines”, and other ethics
management mechanisms are desirable (ERC, 2003, p. 1).
The ERC (2007) reports “Despite a 65 percent rise since 2005 in the number of
companies that have implemented a comprehensive ethics and compliance program, still
less than 40 percent of the companies have put all the necessary elements in place” (p.
20). A common challenge organizations face instituting ethics is the failure to
communicate expectations and desired results, both implicitly and explicitly, throughout
the organization (Sims, 2003). Often ethical standards remain illusive as a result of an
organization’s lack of knowledge, ambiguity, and general hesitancy to address ethical or
moral issues openly in the workplace. Many managers have a tendency to view ethics as
a personal matter to be dealt with by the individual’s own conscience (Lennick & Keil,
2005; Paine, 1997). Another reason this may be the case is that the “… adoption of a
6
comprehensive ethics and compliance program is related to the nature of company
ownership and company size, with publically-traded and larger companies most likely to
have a comprehensive program in place” (ERC, 2007, p. 21). Many scholars have
proposed frameworks for instituting ethics in the workplace (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006;
Clark & Lattal, 1993; Costa, 1998; Navern, 2003; Paine, 1997; Sims, 2003; Van Zant,
2005), yet there is no universally accepted model for instituting ethics in an organization.
HRD and Ethics in Organizations
Ethics, and their importance as ‘pillars of vision’ and one of the most driving
forces in an organization (Robbins, 2004), send a strong message that serious attention is
required to instill ethics in the workplace. Fostering ethics is not an easy task and remains
a constant endeavor for organizational leaders and there is still much to learn about the
art and science of integrating ethics in the workplace (Foote & Ruona, 2008).
Human Resource Development (HRD) can play a key role in the
institutionalization of ethics. Indeed, research shows that both HR and HRD professionals
are increasingly taking on responsibilities for ethics programs in their organizations. In a
collaborative effort in 2003, the ERC and The Society of Human Resource Management
(SHRM) conducted a survey to understand how HR professionals are involved in ethics
in their organizations. The survey reported,
…of the HR professionals surveyed, 67% either agreed or strongly
agreed that the human resources department is a primary ethics resource for
their organization. Similarly, 71% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed
that HR professionals are involved in formulating the ethics policy of the
organization.
7
The findings of this study confirm that HR plays a vital role in the development of an
ethical organizational culture (http://www.ethics.org/erc-publications/ethics-today, 2009,
p. 1).
In addition, the field of HRD has shown a growing interest in ethics because of
the role HRD professionals’ perform in organizations and their unique set of skills and
expertise (Hatcher, 2002). Many scholars espouse the idea that HRD professionals should
play a significant role in the early development of ethics planning, ethics management
(Hatcher, 2002), and the process of creating and maintaining ethical cultures (Hatcher,
2002; Meisinger, 2008; Trevino, 2000).
Navern (2003), in conjunction with the ERC, identifies several components for
changing the ethical culture of an organization that are synergistic with the competencies
of HRD professionals. Some of these components include ensuring the values of the
organization are considered in employee decision-making, creating organizational
systems, procedures and policies to guide employees in decision-making, communicating
expectations through formal and informal means, and implementing communication and
educational strategies.
HRD & Institutionalization of Ethics
HRD’s role can be particularly valuable due to its emphasis on learning and
performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). There is still a lot to learn about the integration
of ethics in the workplace, but clearly central to the institutionalization of ethics is a
renewed focus on individuals who need to learn to work in more ethical ways.
This is where the ethics knowledgebase falls short. The predominant emphasis in
ethics theory and research during the past two decades has largely focused on aspects of
8
ethical behavior in an organization such as the process of ethical decision-making in
organizations (Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1986; Wooten & White, 1983), ethical decision-
making in times of crisis (Christensen & Kohls, 2003; May & Pauli, 2002), ethical
decision-making and the influence of situational factors (McDonald, 2000), and ethical
decision-making and leadership and groups (Baker & Hunt, 2003; Bowen, 2002; Carlson,
Kacmer, & Wadsworth, 2002).
In addition, case studies available in the literature have produced important
insights on leadership and integrity in organizations (Paine, 1997) in many disciplines
and professions to understand ethical dilemmas pertinent to a specific context (Hatcher,
2002; Kirby, 2005; Sims, 2003).
While this research is absolutely valuable, Brenner (1992) states, “…the literature
is much more limited on ethics programs, as is the discussion of their behavioral and
structural dimensions” (p. 391). That is, the ethics literature has largely focused on
exploring ethical decision-making and ethical dilemmas, but perhaps not focused enough
on understanding and investigating the individual learning and change processes that are
a fundamental part of the kind of organizational change that is demanded by efforts to
institutionalize ethics.
Sims (2003) suggests the institutionalization of ethics implies that ethics is
practiced on a daily basis. He states, “An institutionalized act is defined as a behavior that
is performed by two or more individuals, persists over time and exists as a part of the
daily functioning of the organization” (p. 242). Further, Sims (2003) emphasizes, “ethics
is seldom “clear cut”…and the vast majority of decisions employees make concern “gray
areas” (p. 31). Yet, outside of formal programs that are ordinarily implemented at
9
different times throughout the year in an organization, there is no research that addresses
how individuals learn ethics so they can practice ethics on a daily basis.
Learning Ethics
Over the past several decades a key role of HRD professionals has been, and still
is, to help employees learn in the workplace; and this remains a core concept in support
of basic human resource development (McLean, 2006; Swanson & Holton, 2001).
Drawing from adult learning, psychology, systems theory, and other theories, HRD
professionals have trained and developed employees of an organization through formal
programs and other organizational development (OD) strategies used to increase
“…individual, group, and organizational effectiveness” (Torraco, 2005, p. 251).
Navern (2003) suggests that adult learning concepts provide the foundation
needed for implementation of some core components of an ethics initiative. Adult
learning theories can be used as frameworks to understand how employees learn ethics at
work. Learning is defined as a process that brings together cognitive, emotional, and
environmental influences and experiences for acquiring, enhancing, or making changes in
one’s knowledge, skills, values, and worldviews (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner,
2007).
However, Casey (2005) suggests,
Much of the literature on individual learning in the workplace has
focused on formal training and development…organizations are finding
that the methods used to train people in new roles and skills have not
kept pace with the rapid change and complexity of jobs in today’s work
environment. (p. 133)
10
In addition to failed training programs, Sims (2003) suggests that organizations
that are instituting ethics should develop long-term and short-term goals and the learning
that goes in the organization should be supported by the organizational culture.
Research shows that adults learn in many ways in the workplace; many of those
ways are outside of formal learning experiences and contexts. In the early 1990’s the
concept of the learning organization presented new insights about organizational learning
(Marsick & Watkins, 1990; Senge, 1990). In the same time period, new findings
suggested that individuals in an organization may learn through experience and
reflection, and informal and incidental learning. Chiva and Alegre (2005) suggest, “When
it comes to studying organizational learning, most authors have looked at how individuals
in an organization learn, or have analyzed how individual learning theories could be
applied to organizational learning” (p. 52).
Sims (2002) suggests that learning styles and experiential learning are the
cornerstones of teaching business ethics. Although adult learning theory has been well
documented in the literature, few studies addressed how employees specifically learn
ethics in the workplace. More research is needed to examine other ways employees learn
ethics at work in addition to formal programs that may enhance the sustainability of
ethical behavior and organizational culture.
Problem Statement
The rash of ethics scandals over the past two decades in the United States have
disheartened the American people causing a surge of activity from the halls of Congress
to the offices of non-profits, professional ethics associations and concerned scholars,
11
business and community members— all seeking ways to learn how to prevent ethical
mishaps and instill ethics in the workplace.
Based on the results of a biennial longitudinal study conducted in 2005 on ethics
in organizations, it is suggested that although ethics programs in organizations are rising,
these programs are not as effective as predicted (ERC, 2005). Many scholars believe that
sustaining ethics in an organization are driven by the notion of the institutionalizing
ethics which means that ethics become a permanent part of the organization and
employees practice ethical behavior on a daily basis. Although the institutionalization
process is complex, many scholars have proposed frameworks describing key
components for integrating ethics in the workplace, yet there is no particular framework
that is universal. Further, much of the literature available discusses ethics and
organizations from the perspective of ethical decision-making in different contexts.
Despite the level of ethics activity reflected in government interventions, ethics surveys,
and scholarly research, there is minimal literature that addresses how employees learn
ethics in the workplace.
Moreover, the complexity of organizational change and helping adults learn in an
organizational context require competent skilled leaders. Some scholars believe that HR
and HRD are capable of leading and managing ethics in an organization because of their
unique skill-set and knowledge of adult learning, organizational development and
systems theories.
Lastly, there is a plethora of literature that addresses adult learning methods and
strategies in an organization (Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner, 2007), yet little is
12
known about how employees learn ethics in the workplace. More research is needed to
surface ways employees learn ethics in the workplace.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how employees learn ethics in the
workplace. The research questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What formal programs or activities do employees engage in to learn
ethics in the workplace?
2. What other ways do employees learn ethics in the workplace?
Significance of Study
Over the past decade scholars in HRD have encouraged more involvement in
researching ethics as part of the field’s research agenda and to further promote their
capabilities and involvement in strategic interventions in the workplace such as ethics.
The significance of this study to the field of HRD is multidimensional.
First, this study answers the call for more research in the area of ethics and HRD
(Hatcher, 2002). It advances the notion that HRD professionals have and should have a
critical role to play in the promotion of ethics in the workplace, and provides guidance
around that work for HRD professionals.
Second, the knowledge that is gleaned from this study regarding the different
ways employees learn ethics in the workplace will provide new knowledge and add,
and/or update the existing knowledgebase in the field of HRD. Much of ethics training
literature has focused on the formal learning and its delivery systems. Very little has been
published in the literature regarding other ways employees learn ethics. Although adult
learning theories are already a foundation of HRD, the multiple ways people learn ethics
13
requires specific adult learning theories to inform and enhance the practice of HRD. This
study will elucidate other ways employees learn ethics and provide guidance as to which
theories in adult learning inform best practices. HRD professionals will benefit from this
emerging knowledge to use in the planning, implementation, and management of more
effective learning experiences for employees.
Third, boards of directors and ethics and compliance officers will benefit from
this study because leaders of the organization must support the ethics efforts of the
organization, through role-modeling, allocating appropriate resources needed to
institutionalize ethics, and understanding the effectiveness and the overall performance of
the initiatives. As ethics training becomes a universal practice in organizations’
compliance and ethics programs, HRD professionals are being asked to sit on the board.
One survey confirmed that boards having oversight of the organizations’ ethics has
increased from 21% in 1987 to 96% in 2005 of the 225 companies surveyed (HR
Magazine, 2007).
Lastly, in addition to this study benefiting HRD professionals, employees in an
organization may benefit as well. Adult learning principles recognizes that not all adults
learn the same and are motivated for different reasons (Knowles, 1980). These principles
are important aspects of helping adults learn.
Research shows that HR and HRD professionals are being called upon in
organizations to facilitate the institutionalization of ethics and facilitate ethics programs.
Further, HR and HRD professionals are being recognized for their competencies and
contributions they can make in strategic change initiatives such as the institutionalization
of ethics. As the ethical landscape becomes more dismal in the corporate arena,
14
organizations need advocates such as HRD professionals that have the skills and the
knowledge to be organizational leaders and play a pivotal role in the ethics management
in the workplace (Hatcher, 2002; Trevino, 2007).
Definition of Terms
To aid in the comprehension of this study the following terms are defined.
1. Ethics― This term refers to the discipline that studies the philosophical
implications of what is good or bad and right and wrong. This term also refers to the
duties and obligations of an individual or group to uphold a standard of right and
wrong (NBES, 2005).
2. Ethical culture— Cummings and Worley (2001) define organizational culture as
a term that refers to the pattern of assumptions, values, norms, and artifacts
(Cummings & Worley, 2001). Ethical culture describes the culture of the
organization and its members as sharing the commitment to ethics, values, and
norms of the organization.
3. Experiential learning― The process of learning from experience involves adults
connecting what they have learned from current experiences to those in the past as
well to possible future situations (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).
4. Formal programs— According to the NBES (2005) the term refers to the
policies, procedures, and practices that organizations may adopt to help
communicate the importance of ethics, provide resources to employees, and handle
related issues” (p. 5).
15
5. Informal learning― This term is defined as usually intentional but not highly
structured. Examples of informal learning are coaching, mentoring, self-directed
learning, and networking (Marsick & Watkins, 1999).
6. Incidental learning― Learning that is tacit, unconscious. Examples of incidental
learning hidden agendas in an organization or classroom, learning from mistakes,
unsystematic process of trial and error (Marsick & Watkins, 1999).
7. Institutionalization— This term refers to making organizational changes a
permanent part of the organizations normal functioning (Cummings & Worley,
2001).
8. Learning― A process that brings together cognitive, emotional, and
environmental influences and experiences for acquiring, enhancing, or making
changes in one’s knowledge, skills, values, and worldviews (Merriam, Caffarella, &
Baumgartner, 2007).
16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to understand how employees learn ethics in the
workplace. The research questions that guided this study are:
1. What formal programs and activities do employees engage in to learn
ethics in the workplace?
2. What other ways do employees learn ethics in the workplace?
Conceptual Framework
This study explored how employees learn ethics in the workplace using concepts
and theories grounded in (a) ethics, (b) the institutionalization of ethics, and (3) adult
learning theory. The convergence of these concepts and theories formed the basis for
understanding the dimensional aspects from philosophical and process perspectives. Each
area is discussed in depth in this chapter.
First, the predominant ethics theories--teleology, deontology, and virtue ethics--
are presented to provide a framework for understanding ethics as an area of philosophy in
that these extent ethical principles influence organizational decision-making, moral and
ethical leadership, and culture.
Second, this chapter presents several frameworks that describe the process of
instituting ethics and provide a holistic view and the structure for understanding the
components of the process. Third, adult learning theory provides the framework to
explore how individuals learn ethics in the context of an organization which includes key
17
theories such as self-directed learning, formal, informal and incidental learning, and
experiential learning. Finally, the role of human resource development (HRD) is explored
in the context of HRD professionals sharing responsibility for leadership and
management in the institutionalization process.
Ethics
Ethics is an area of philosophy that presents age old truths, arguments, and critical
analysis of the nature and the origin of the field of right and wrong, good and bad, and
justice and injustice (Thoms, 2008). Lehmann (1963) states, “In causal and unreflective
usage, the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ tend to be interchangeable as though they were
synonymous terms” (p. 240). Moreover, ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos that
means customs, conduct, or character (Beck & Orr, 1970; Merriam-Webster Collegiate
Dictionary 1999; Northouse, 2005; Thiroux, 2004). Similarly, ‘morals’, a synonym of
ethics, which origins come from the Latin term moralis― means character, manners, or
customs (Beck & Orr, 1970, p. xiii).
Scholars suggest that ethics is the study of morality in terms of what is good, bad,
right, and wrong and is an explicit philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices
(Hinman, 2002, p. 2; Thiroux, 2004). What is ‘good’ and what is ‘right’ have delineating
characteristics that differentiate the various classical ethical theories. For example, “what
is ‘good’ is thought to be noble and valuable; in contrast, what is ‘right’ is characterized
as obligatory and related to personal duty” (Ross, 1939, p. 10). The study of ethics can
further be explained as being concerned with the morality and practice of the foundation
of human behaviors (Lehmann, 1963) as it relates to “human conduct, voluntary or
involuntary action, and having a choice” (Beck and Orr, 1970, p. xiv).
18
The translation of ethics principles and their practical application has become an
important topic of study in business schools and organizations. The expectation society
has placed on businesses and their leaders to perform ethically and socially responsible
has prompted business schools to place a greater emphasis on ethics courses in the
curriculum to instill the importance of ethics in the development of future business
leaders (Sims, 2002). The integration of ethics courses into the curriculum is to develop
students’ “… intellectual capacities for ethical discernment, analysis, judgment, and
reflection” (Sims, 2002, p. 17).
Business ethics, a systematic study of business from an ethical perspective,
pertains to the ‘shoulds and should not’s’ and proposes there are standards above and
beyond regulations (Thoms, 2008). There is a controversy on whether teaching ethics in
business school are effective. Williams and Dewitt (2005) disregard the idea that business
schools cannot teach ethics because of the inherent self-interest aspect of a capitalist
society. Further, critics suggest that students at that point in their scholarly lives have
already formed moral perspectives. Other scholars perceive that students should be
exposed to ethics theories and concepts to develop analytical skills for resolving personal,
professional dilemmas, and moral issues facing the larger society (Nash, 2002; Sims,
2002). Nash (2002) regards the study of ethics to promote students to become “ethical
analysts” and encourage students to recognize “ethical complexities, wrestle with
opposing views, discover flaws in their own ethical biases, and reach thoughtful,
informed, and logical defensible conclusions” (p. 8).
19
Ethics: Human Being Perspective
Pearson (1995) suggests, “An organization is only ethical to the extent individuals
running the organizations are ethical” (p. 1). Pearson surfaces an important aspect of
organizational ethics by recognizing the humanistic perspective of ethics. According to
Thiroux (2004), ethics on a fundamental level is concerned with how humans act towards
each other to encourage mutual “welfare, growth, creativity, and meaning as they strive
for good over bad and right over wrong” (p. 29). Further, the study of ethics can be
explained as being concerned with the morality and practice of the foundation of human
behaviors (Lehman, 1963) as it relates to “human conduct, voluntary or involuntary
action, and having a choice” (Beck & Orr, 1970, p. xiv).
Ethics of human beings is aligned with moral behavior reflected in particular
customs, precepts, and practices of people and cultures (Brockett & Hiemstra, 2004).
Carroll and Buchholtz (1999) suggest that to understand how human beings make
morally bound decisions, it is important to understand how individuals develop moral
reasoning. Moral development theories, such as Kohlberg’s (1974) levels of moral
development and Gilligan’s (1993) ethics of care, provide two different explanations for
understanding how human beings develop moral or ethical judgment.
Kohlberg’s Theory
Kohlberg’s (1974) longitudinal study with children culminated in a theoretical
framework that has been applied in many different fields to understand moral
development in adults. His theoretical framework includes three levels of moral
development that an individual transitions through while learning how to think morally.
The six stages of Kohlberg’s theory provide a ‘scaffolding effect’ or stages that an
20
individual transitions through successfully to get to the next level. Kohlberg (1974)
describes these levels as the pre-conventional level of moral development, conventional,
and post-conventional levels. The pre-conventional level focuses on self. This level is
concerned with avoiding punishment and receiving rewards. The conventional level
focuses on others and awareness of others needs and welfare. In this level an individual
begins to be aware of laws and expectations requiring conformance and learns how to
respond to conventional norms. The last level is the post-conventional level. The focus of
this level is on humankind. Individuals that make it to this level feel a true sense of right
and wrong, and moral principles become a part of self (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2005;
Kohlberg, 1974; Thiroux, 2004).
Williams and Dewitt (2005) allude to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
(1974) and suggest that moral development of an individual is related to the recognition
of ethical dilemmas. William and Dewitt (2005) believe “moral and ethical sensitivity”
towards the consequences of individual actions must be present in an organization to
promote ethical behavior (p.112).
Gilligan’s Theory of Care
There are distinct differences in Kohlberg’s (1974) and Gilligan’s (1993) work.
Gilligan’s focus on feminist theory concentrates on women’s moral development with an
emphasis more on caring as opposed to justice and legalese. Gilligan (1993) argues that
moral problems are problems of human relations. In her explanation of ethics of care, she
distinguishes this theoretical perspective from others as being a “relational ethic which
transcends opposition between selfishness and selflessness” (p. xix).
21
Gilligan’s focus on women’s development, in contrast to Kohlberg’s (1974) use
of all male subjects for his research, suggests moral reasoning stems from relationships
and connections. She believes that women transition between three different levels,
which include self, need for establishment and connection in social life, and the
recognition of their own need and needs for others they are in relationships with. Gilligan
(1993) calls this ‘ethic of care’. The themes that evolve from these levels are the fostering
of commitment in relationships, caring, justice, and empowerment (Merriam &
Caffarella, 1999). Both, Kohlberg’s (1974) and Gilligan’s (1993) theories of moral
development are frameworks from which to understand how individuals choose to make
ethical and moral decisions in their personal and/or organizational lives (Sims, 2002).
Ethics: Organizational Perspective
Moral and ethical behaviors are associated with characteristics of good leadership.
Yet, historically moral leadership seems to be represented in the literature as secondary to
theoretical frameworks of leadership styles and traits. However, in the last few years,
attention has shifted from the predominant theories of leadership, to a more concentrated
focus on the moral and ethical aspects such as moral reasoning, ethical decision-making,
and principled leadership (Bass, 1990; Carroll, 1987; London, 2005; Northouse, 2004;
Penn, 1990; Sims, 2002). Thoms (2008) suggests,
The ethical integrity of leaders is defined as a measure of how they deal with
morals, the principles of morality, and right and wrong conduct within the
business environment in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct
or practice. (p. 420)
22
Ethics is embedded in the application of humanistic values and principles and
business strategy. Milton-Smith (1999) cites Wharton’s Business School’s nine principles
for humanistic values, which he considers to be operational in a practical market strategy.
These nine principles are associated with incentives and disincentives for economic
decision-makers. Four of these principles are centered on efficiency driven principles that
include due care, honoring contracts, corporate integrity, protection of proprietary
information and confidentiality.
Further, four principles are society driven principles that are based on respect for
the environment, the rights of others, human well-being, and individual independence.
The last principle relates to government compliance, regulations that firms must follow.
Pearson (1995) suggests that the application of ethics theories and standards to business
can only have practical value if it takes full account of these business realities. Pearson
(1995) questions “whether or not a business should be ethical, and if so, to what degree
and how can management achieve the required performance” (p. 39). He surmises that
the most philosophy can do is provide an approach to the problem; a structured way
about thinking of things and of balancing conflicting arguments (Pearson, 1995).
It can be argued that “… unless codes of ethics are applied as part of a strategic
management approach they quickly become empty window dressing, at best, and a
symbol of a cynical and dishonest management, at worst” (Milton-Smith,1999, p.18).
Milton-Smith (1999) suggests that the focus on ethics and, more specifically, the
effective use of a code of ethics to build a corporate culture may be the key to revitalizing
the languishing strategic management paradigm. Chakraborty and Chatterjee (1999)
suggest that ethical issues are emerging as the most important managerial challenge in all
23
spheres of organizational life spanning to strategy-making, finance, and technology,
marketing, and information systems to the subtle concerns of gender, demography, or
cultural diversity and impacting decision-making. Carroll and Buchholtz (2005) believe
that ethics principles can improve ethical decision-making if the principles of the various
ethics approaches are “factored in” to their proposed actions, decisions, behaviors, and
practices…” (p. 214). The concern for ethics in an organization has come full circle,
circling back to ethics philosophy and the application of its tenets. Phillips (2003)
suggests past attempts to relate moral and political philosophy in organizations has
resulted in integrating appropriate theoretical perspectives in the workplace. Many of
these ethics theories fall under the domains of either utilitarian or non-utilitarian
philosophies and are studied by business and management students. Table 2.1 represents
the primary teleological theories that have application to organizational and individual
decision-making.
Teleology
The term teleology is derived form the Greek word ‘telos’ which refers to the
outcome or result (Sims, 2002; Thiroux, 2004). This approach to moral and ethical
reasoning is the teleological approach and is concerned with the consequences of an act
or decision and grounded in principles that infer decisions are dependent on the greatest
good for the most people versus whether or not the behavior was good or bad (Sims,
2002; Thiroux, 2004). Further, Hinman (2002) clarifies this teleological position by
stating “…any position in ethics which claims that the rightness and wrongness of actions
depends on their consequences” (p. 1). Sims (2002) summarizes the theological approach
and states, “An act or decision is right if it results in benefits for people and it is wrong if
24
it leads to damages or harm” (p. 120). Two well-documented approaches to ethical
decision-making are ethical egoism and utilitarianism, which are derived from teleology.
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Egoism is a teleological theory that suggests that individuals’ should act in
their own self interest (Hinman, 2002). Sometimes referred to as psychological egoism
and materialism (Bowen, 2002), this theory is comprised of three key concepts which are
described in the following forms: (a) individual ethical egoism suggests that everyone
should act in his/his best “self” interest, (b) an individual acts in his/hers best interest but
has no opinion on how others should act, and (c) the universal form maintains that
everyone should always act in his or her own self-interest (Thiroux, 2004). The universal
form of utilitarianism differs from individual ethical egoism in that the expectation is
everyone should consider their self-interests first and not the interests of others.
There are many examples of ethical egoism in the workplace, especially in ethical
decision-making, that suggest that ethical egoism is a common ethical framework that
people in contemporary organizations utilize. In a business context, ethical egoism is
exemplified in organizational leaders making specific decisions to maximize profits.
Another illustration of ethical egoism is a situation where a manager of a department is
solely motivated to maximize profits in his department to facilitate his/her own
promotion (Northouse, 2004).
There are both advantages and disadvantages in subscribing to the theory of
ethical egoism. One advantage of ethical egoism is that individuals prescribing to ethical
egoism do well in a capitalist society. The advantages of this theoretical perspective
include the idea that individuals know more about their own self-interest than moralists,
25
who think they know what is best for others. Further, ethical egoism encourages
individual freedom and responsibility, which works well in limited and isolated arenas,
thus limiting conflicts.
The disadvantages are primarily associated with the lack of clarity when defining
individual self-interest. Because ethical egoism focuses on self-interest, or on what is
good for the individual and negates humanity, to apply ethical egoism to all of humanity
would deny one’s own self-interest. Ambiguity is the main disadvantage associated with
the universal form of ethical egoism.
Additionally, the verbiage used to describe universal egoism lacks clarity with
respect to specifically whose self-interest should be satisfied, who should be giving moral
advice, and the differentiation of moral and non-moral issues. Overall, individuals
prescribing to the theory of ethical egoism may not be successful in professions that
require compassion, patience, caring for humanity and caring for others such as medicine,
education, and social work (Thiroux, 2004).
Ethics approaches can affect the organizational behavior. In the case of ethical
egoism, this approach seems to promote two significant limitations in the workplace.
First, from an organizational perspective, this approach causes difficulty in managing
conflicts of self-interest. Second, the option of compromise is not an option in the pure
sense of ethical egoism. This limitation is significant because of the interdependent
nature of society, rapid change, and cultural diversity (Thiroux, 2004).
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is another teleological consequentialist approach that dates back to
the late 1700’s and is identified with the philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1789), John
26
Stuart Mill (1861), and Henry Sedgwick (1907) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
2003; Thiroux, 2004). There are several ways in which utilitarianism has been described.
Utilitarianism, which name stems from ‘utility’ meaning usefulness, simply poses that
decisions are made to reflect behavior that promotes the greatest good for the most people
(Northouse, 2004). Furthermore, what is considered ‘moral or good’ is dependent on the
same premise that everyone should act in a way that produces maximum happiness for all
concerned as a group (Thiroux, 2004).
Utilitarianism is further explained through its two forms: Act Utilitarianism and
the Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is differentiated from the pure definition of
Utilitarianism by its assertion that decisions made or actions taken may or may not create
the maximum happiness for all, but, that the outcome of good or happiness for all is
situational. There is no universal good. What is good for some may not be good for
others. Acts that may seem immoral from one ethical perspective may be considered the
right or moral way to act under the circumstances because it results in good for the most
people. In contrast, Rule Utilitarianism is based on a thoughtfully determined set of rules
aimed at determining the appropriate acts or set of behaviors for everyone to achieve
good or happiness for the most people (Thiroux, 2004).
The most significant example of the application of utilitarianism is evidenced in
the United States government. The utilitarianism approach guides the decision-making
process of the United States government, as well as most public and non-profit
organizations. A profound illustration of utilitarianism at work is exemplified in federal
government’s decisions, specifically in the allocation of monies to programs that will
benefit the greater population (Northouse, 2004).
27
The key concerns of Act Utilitarianism are threefold. First, determining what are
good or moral consequences for everyone is a difficult task and may never be achievable.
Second, this form is based on a specific situation. Each situation may require different
acts or ways to achieve the good for all. The task of evaluating each situation to
determine the appropriate actions is time-consuming and unrealistic and third, the ability
to educate the “young or uninitiated” (Thiroux, 2004, p. 50) to act morally is difficult
without rules or guidelines.
In contrast, the three main criticisms of the Rule Utilitarianism include one
common criticism posed in the act form: the difficult task in determining what constitutes
good or moral consequences for others. The second criticism or disadvantage regarding
this form of utilitarianism is its inability to manage the diversity aspect in determining
rules that result in the moral good of everyone concerned. Building on this thought, the
third concern is in reality when such rules are prescribed practically assessing exceptions
to the rule make the rules become ineffectual and disregarded long-term.
Implications for organizational behavior are found in the determination of what
action is good for everyone in the organization. Thiroux (2004) suggests this sometimes
is referred to as “cost-benefit analysis or the end justifies the mean” (p. 45). He uses the
example of having to decide in an organization, which employees are worth more to
society as professionals than others; therefore, the more valued professionals will receive
more benefits or bigger monetary rewards.
Table 2.1 reflects the predominant teleological theories indicating the main
premise of the theory, motive of the individual or organization, and characteristics.
28
Table 2.1. Predominant Ethics Theories: Teleology
Theory Ethical Egoism
Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism
Main premise Individuals’ should act in their own best interests
Behavior that promotes the greatest good for most people
There is no universal good; circumstances dictate decision
Based on a set of rules that are thought to be good for everyone
Motive of individual or organization
Motivated by achievement and promotion of own interests
Motivated by what is the best approach for the greatest good and happiness
Motivated by doing good for the majority of people
Motivated by a set of rules deemed appropriate for everyone
Characteristics Encourages individual freedom and responsibility
Government rules and regulations
Difficult task to determine what is good for everyone
Difficult to determine what are good or bad consequences for individuals
Deontology
In contrast, deontology or non-consequentialist theory, is defined as “…any
position in ethics which claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on
whether they correspond to our duty or not” (Hinman, 2002, p. 2). Deontological, non-
consequentialist theories are not concerned about whether the consequences of the acts
are in the end morally sound, but rather with the acts themselves being moral. The main
assumptions focus on specific moral acts and situations, and how people feel or “intuit”
what acts or situations are right or wrong (Thiroux, 2004, p. 59). In an organizational
context, this approach focuses on individuals making decisions using their intuition
because there are no rules. In comparison, the rule consequentialist theories assume that
morality is found in the rules that dictate action.
29
In addition to act and rule non-consequentialist theories, there are four well-
known deontological theoretical frameworks that have relevant implications in moral
leadership and duty within an organizational context. These ethical theories include
Kant’s Duty Ethics (Absolutism), Ross’s Prima Facie Duties, John Rawls’s Theory of
Justice, and Virtue Ethics.
Kant’s Duty Ethics
Ross (1939) states, “Kant’s ethics has been perhaps the nearest approach to pure
ethics of duty…” (p. 4). Kantian ethics is a non-consequentialist theory commonly
referred to as “duty ethics” and is considered to be normative or prescriptive in nature.
For Kant, all morality depended on a single ‘categorical imperative’ or unconditional
command, i.e. the universal law individuals should use to guide their actions (Hinman,
2002). The theory ascribes to five principles, which include the imperatives of (a) good
will, (b) establishing morality by reasoning alone, (c) the categorical imperative, (d) the
practical imperative, (e) and duty rather than inclination (Thiroux, 2004). Each of these
imperatives builds on one another to form a coherent theoretical moral argument.
Kant’s first imperative ‘good will’ is derived from his belief that good will is the
only thing that is good in and of its self. He further believed that ‘will’ was the unique
behavior that allowed humans to follow rules, laws, or principles regardless of personal
interests or potential consequences (Thiroux, 2004). The second imperative addresses the
establishment of morality by reasoning alone. Embodied in the imperative are what Kant
defines as moral absolutes. These moral absolutes are described as possessing specific
requirements such as (a) logic, (b) consistency, (c) universal application, and (d)
conformity to everything without exception. The third imperative Kant terms the
30
categorical imperative, which assumes that human acts are immoral if there is no rule that
exists that could justify or be made universal to all human beings. The fourth imperative
is the practical imperative and is associated with human rights. This imperative suggests
that human beings should not be used as a means to someone else’s ends, and further, that
human beings have their own moral ends. The fifth and final imperative, duty and
inclination, promotes human action based on duty in situations where the individual may
be inclined to act out in an immoral way. Kant promotes that the individual must choose
to abide by the rules, regardless of individual inclinations.
Kant’s Duty Ethics theory poses many concerns. The problems exist in the lack of
clarity associated with the concepts of universality and consistency with regard to the
‘absolutes’ or rules. Kant is criticized for negating the clarification of the moral
implications in a situation where absolute rules become inconsistent when universalized
(Thiroux, 2004). In a pure sense, Kantian ethics would be an ineffective approach to use
in the resolution of moral issues or ethical decision-making. Rather, this ethical system
could serve as a framework in which to test morally questionable decisions based on
organization’s values and code of ethics, i.e. rules. Duty ethics apply to certain aspects in
an organization such as employment law, federal regulations, and environmental
standards because of their universality, consistency, and the moral implications of each.
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties
Ross’s (1877-1940) theoretical framework has been compared and contrasted
with Kantian ethics and rule utilitarianism. The basic premise of his theory is based on
the acknowledgement that there exist certain duties called ‘prima-facie’ duties that must
be followed unless extenuating circumstances prevent them. Further, consequences are
31
not reflective of right or wrong, yet considerations of the potential consequences in the
resolution of a moral issue are thought to be prudent. The Prima Facie Duties embedded
in his theory are associated with fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-
improvement, and preventing injuries to others (Thiroux, 2004).
There are problems that exist with regard to Ross’s theoretical framework. These
problems are related to the lack of methodology in the selection and ranking of duties. It
seems that intuition was used to create the duties, yet a problem exists in the fact that all
individuals may not have the same intuition and therefore, would choose different rules.
In decision-making there are no clear rules or guidelines to differentiate between the
rankings of one prima facie duty over another (Thiroux, 2004).
In an organizational context, there are many instances where prima facie duties
may exert dominance in an ethical decision-making scenario. Organizations have rules
and usually these rules are situational, when a rule is broken one may look at extenuating
circumstances. A common example of prima facie is illustrated by an employee missing
more days of work than allotted because of an illness. The employer might view the
serious illness as an extenuating circumstance that if not rectified appropriately may be
detrimental to the employee and company. In this example the employer is utilizing the
prima facie duty and is looking at the situation as an extenuating circumstance,
considering the consequences to both employer and employee.
John Rawl’s Theory of Justice
Rawl’s Theory of Justice is based on two principles derived from a just society;
freedom for all and inequality is permissible as long as equal opportunity exists. This
32
theory is compared and contrasted with Locke (1632-1704) who theorized that human
rights were more related to natural rights existing in human beings through nature.
Rawl’s Theory of Justice is compatible in societies that employ democracy such
as the United States. This theory considers individual freedom, allows for fair and
equitable distribution of wealth, and attempts to give equality to the rights of the
individual and freedom for the good of the whole (Thiroux, 2004).
There are inevitably obvious concerns in Rawl’s Theory of Justice which are
associated with taxation of the wealthy members of society, exorbitant salaries paid to
professionals that have little to do with helping society, and the myriad of ‘loop holes’
that those with privilege can take advantage of. Although there are concerns with Rawl’s
theory, his theory is significant in the examination of ethical theory and ethics in
organizations. With regard to the organizational context, Rawl’s theory is manifested in
examples such as Employment Law and regulations such as equal opportunity acts and
minimum wage.
Virtue Ethics/Nichomachean Ethics
The discipline of ethics can be traced back to the scholarly work of Plato and
Aristotle during the fourth century B.C. over 2, 300 years ago (Peters, 2005; Sims, 2004;
Thiroux, 2004). Aristotle’s work has come to be known as the Nicmachean Ethics and
more popularly recognized in the twenty-first century as Virtue Ethics (Rachels, 2003).
This work contextualized his thinking on human ethics as the art of living well and
flourishing within the context of the state and centered on an individual’s character and
moral and intellectual development (Nash, 2002; Peters, 2005). Hye-Kyung Kim writes
and is stated in Peters (2005),
33
Aristotle’s is an ethics not of principles and rules, but of character, character
development, proper deportment, proper and appropriate relations to others, and
proper feeling. His guiding idea is not “breaking or keeping the law” but “being
or not being the best person possible.” It is, in a certain sense, an ethics of self-
development, and duties to oneself figure prominently in it (Peters, 2005; p. xiii).
Scholars of Aristotelian ethics recognize that there are two different
interpretations of his work that are often referred to as Nicmachean ethics and virtue
ethics, yet are fundamentally the same in their end goals. Although Virtue Ethics is
derived from Nicmachean ethics, Nicmachean ethics is teleological in nature meaning
actions have purpose and aims toward a certain end (Peters, 2005: Thiroux, 2004). While
Virtue Ethics outlines traits of character manifested in daily habits (Rachels, 2003) such
as honesty, cooperativeness, civility, courage, patience, prudence, and more are thought
to be virtuous when practiced consistently.
Contemporary philosophers and ethicists have advanced the notion that Virtue
Ethics can be applied in the modern day world (Thiroux, 2004). Rachels (2003) concurs,
and outlines several elements that must exist before Virtue Ethics can be fully
appreciated as an ethical theory that can be applied. These elements include (a) definition
and explanation of what virtue means, (b) identification of character traits that are virtues,
(c) provision of an explanation of why these qualities are preferable, and (d)
determination whether these virtues are appropriate and good for all human beings
regardless of the individual’s characteristics and culture.
According to Rachels (2003) there are challenges that exist in the conversation
about morality and ethics. She purports that a universal truth regarding morality and
34
ethics is non-existent because morality is embedded in a culture’s customs and moral
codes. Nash (2002) defines “real world” ethics as being a “… complex mixture of
personal, social, and professional morality” (p. 1). Real world ethics infers that moral
bias, feelings and intuition of an individual, and cultural norms and virtues are reflected
in the work environment. An individual’s actions and perceptions of ethics and morality
are embedded in practices such as training, decision-making, workplace norms, roles, and
codes of ethics (Nash, 2002), whereas, Weston (2002) alludes to ethics as being a
framework for individuals to test or justify their feelings and values.
In a practical sense, ethics provides the structure that allows an individual to
clarify, prioritize, and embody values. Weston (2002) suggests the term ‘ethics’ has a
critical aspect, which allows individuals to attempt to go beyond tacitly living out their
values to consciously thinking through them. Weston’s view of ethics is synergistic with
the Aristotelian point of view that the moral function of a human being requires the
ability to reason (Thiroux, 2004).
Virtue Ethics is defined as a “moral theory that had its beginnings with Aristotle
and which is based not upon consequences, feelings, or rules, but upon human beings
developing a moral or virtuous character by doing what an ideal good or virtuous person
would do” (Thiroux, 2004, p. 69). According to Thiroux (2004), the qualities associated
with virtue ethics are moral excellence, responsibility, righteousness, justice, fortitude,
and temperance. Concern for the acts and feelings of human character that promote
reason and rationality in human action is a primary tenet of Virtue Ethics.
Within this framework is a discussion on the philosophical and intellectual
aspects of happiness, moral virtue, intellectual virtue, friendship, pleasure, and what
35
constitutes the happiest life (Peters, 2005). Although many positive teachings have
derived from Virtue Ethics, there are valid questions regarding the completeness of the
theory. Virtue Ethics places emphasis on human character with the aim of promoting the
intrinsic good in the human self and actions. In addition, virtue ethics seeks to encourage
rationality by linking emotion and reason together and values moderation (Thiroux,
2004).
The problem of ambiguity regarding Aristotle’s ethical framework surrounds his
assumptions and the belief that he maintains that may not be part of all human belief
systems. For example, his beliefs that all human beings have a purpose or end may not be
espoused by certain cultures in the modern world and is intangible, therefore, cannot be
proved. Furthermore, there are questions regarding what the virtues are, who determines
these virtues, and questions whether these virtues are inherent in the human-self or
learned behaviors.
Aristotle’s philosophical framework is relevant in the discussion of how to
develop good moral judgment in ethical leadership. It is imperative to acknowledge that
moral judgment is a primary factor in the resolution of moral problems or ethical
dilemmas in an organization. How individuals in the workplace look at moral problems
and ethical dilemmas are largely attributed to their moral lens derived from introspection
of self, how they see themselves and the extent they feel they are moral and good. Virtue
ethics is the foundation for the modern day conversations regarding how moral judgment
can be developed in leaders and moral intelligence achieved in organizations (Kirby,
2004; Lennick & Keil, 2005).
36
Table 2.2. Predominant Ethics Theories: Deontology
Table 2.2 reflects the predominant deontology ethics theories that will be discussed in
this chapter.
Theory Kant’s Duty Ethics
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties
John Rawl’s Theory of Justice
Virtue Ethics
Main premise Five Imperatives: goodwill, morality through reasoning, the categorical imperative, practical imperative and duty rather than inclination
Recognizes that certain duties must be followed unless extenuating circumstances prevent them; duties are associated with fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self- improvement, preventing injuries to others
Embraces two principles: freedom for all, and if inequality exists, equal opportunity must exist; allows for fair and equitable distribution of wealth, and attempts to give equality rights of the individual and freedom for the good of the whole
Moral theory based on human beings developing moral or virtuous character by doing what an ideal, good or virtuous person would do; qualities associated with theory are moral excellence, responsibility, justice, fortitude and temperance
Motive of individual or organization
Lack of clarity of what are the absolutes with the universality and inconsistency
Difficult to rank the importance of duties in decision-making
Concerns are taxation rates for the wealthy, exorbitant salaries paid to executives
Ambiguity exists regarding assumptions and beliefs because they may not be part of everyone’s belief system
Characteristics Employment law, environmental standards
Employer allows employee to miss more days than allotted due to an illness.
Loop holes’ for those of privilege to take advantage of.
Theory used in modern day conversations; how leaders develop moral judgment.
37
Applied Ethics
In organizational life, the environment is largely influenced by leadership and is a
reflection of the principles that are conceptually born from ethical theory such as respect,
service, justice, honesty, and community (Northouse, 2004). Figuratively speaking, if one
would overlay any one of the classic ethical theories on an ethical dilemma or moral
issue, one would gain insight to one’s belief system and the personal theoretical
framework from which they tend to operate.
One of the skills becoming highly regarded in organizations today is a leader’s
ability to demonstrate adeptness in moral reasoning and making decisions based on an
ethical framework (Sims, 2003). The current trend in business schools today is reflective
of this value and is illustrated in the inclusion of ethics courses that teach the importance
of the development of moral judgment through basic understanding of ethical theory and
the unique opportunity to use case studies to develop and practice moral reasoning (Sims,
2003).
To provide some clarity about the phenomenon of theory in practice it is
important to define two key points. Firstly, the applicability of ethics theories in an
organization is likely to be relative to the situation and context. The theory of relativism
is contrary to absolutism and supports the claim that morality is relative to particular
cultures, groups, and individuals. Inherent in this belief is the individuals’ right to
determine their own ethics and values (Thiroux, 2004). This theory is relevant in the
business community and organizations because of the diversity of the global economy as
well as its stakeholders.
38
Secondly, there is some confusion regarding the nomenclature used to describe
ethics in the workplace. Applied ethics refers to the application of ethical theories to real
situations at work. Business ethics, organizational ethics, and applied ethics are similar in
that all are concerned with principles of right and wrong, fairness, justice, and moral
conduct.
One differentiation of these terms may be found in the normative and descriptive
ethics perspectives in the context of the organization. Normative and descriptive ethics
are two key branches of moral philosophy and ethics. Normative ethics is concerned with
supplying and justifying a coherent moral system of thinking and judging. Also, in a
business context, norms and standards are established in which businesses might be
guided and judged. Sims (2003) suggests that normative behaviors are guided by the
expectations of ethical behavior and standards in the workplace.
Moreover, descriptive ethics refers to the description, characterization, and study
of morality of people in an organizational culture. In regard to descriptive ethics, the
focus is on learning what is really happening in the organization, such as behavior,
actions, decisions, policies and procedures…especially visible in the practices of leaders.
The focus of descriptive ethics is on “what is” the prevailing set of ethical standards in
the organization (Sims, 2003, p. 14).
Another differentiation may occur in the approach that an organization takes
towards decision-making. Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) suggest in business ethics a
conventional approach to making moral judgments enables the decision maker to test
options with “prevailing norms of acceptability” (p. 175) or legitimate sources including
norms of a profession, employer, fellow workers, family, and codified laws.
39
Lastly, ethical climate of an organization is driven by the commitment and
intentional integration and practice of values to inform decisions of an organizational
system (Davis, 2002). According to Taylor (2001) ‘moral agency’ is the ability to act
consistently in a manner of moral integrity, which is reflected in hiring, firing,
advancement, sanctions, and rewards. Further, he suggests that moral agency is also
dependent on a set of competencies, which include moral sensibility, responsiveness,
reasoning, accountability, character, valuing, and transformative leadership.
A Moral Lens for Organizational Leadership
There is a new wave of thinking about leadership, moral fortitude, and
organizational performance. Emphasis is increasingly being placed on a leader’s ability to
impart moral judgment in the highly subjective process of resolving morally bound
decisions (Kirby, 2004). Research shows that often a leader’s moral subjectivity reflects
their personal philosophical bias in the ethical decision-making process (Bowen 2002;
Northouse, 2004). Lennick and Keil (2005) introduce the notion of ‘moral intelligence’ in
an organization and correlate it with organizational performance. Moral intelligence is a
term used to describe principles of good leadership, which include integrity,
responsibility, compassion, and forgiveness. Although there is no research to support
their claim, they suggest that organizations that exhibit moral intelligence attract talented
individuals and are perceived to be more financially sound.
Moral and ethical behavior has been associated with characteristics of good
leadership, yet historically, has been represented in the literature as an afterthought or
secondary to theoretical frameworks of leadership styles and traits. However, in the last
few years, attention has shifted from the predominant theories of leadership (i.e.
40
leadership traits, charisma, skills approach versus style approach, power and politics) to a
more concentrated focus on the moral and ethical aspects of leadership such as moral
reasoning, ethical decision-making, and principled leadership (Bass, 1990; Carroll, 1987;
London, 2005; Northouse, 2004; Penn, 1990; Sims, 2002).
Given the nature of this study and its emphasis on ethical leadership in
organizations, Thiroux’s (2004) definition of ethics and morality is more orientated to an
organizational context focusing on the human relationships aspect and the aim of
achieving what is good and what is right in the treatment of others, their mutual welfare,
growth, creativity, and meaning. Metaphorically speaking, ethical theory provides a
moral lens for leaders in their interactions with others, the environment, and the process
of moral and ethical decision-making (Bowen, 2002).
Thiroux’s (2004) explanation can be used in framing morality and organizational
culture. He clearly makes the distinction between absolutism, an absolute truth, and
relativism in relationship to morality. He believes that there are no absolutes and morality
is closely tied to particular cultures, groups, or even individuals. Further, he believes
individuals must determine his/her own values and ethics. In the context of organizational
culture and leadership, relativism considers the variables associated with a culture’s
make-up in an organization. Northouse (2004) makes a clear distinction regarding the
discussion of ethical theory and ethical leadership in the same context. He suggests that
ethical theories only provide the foundations that pose guidelines for ethical leadership.
In other words, he is not suggesting that there is a theoretical framework specifically for
ethical leadership. In essence, he argues that ethical leadership deals primarily with “what
leaders do and what leaders are” (p. 302).
41
Further, some scholars argue that leadership commitment to ethical behavior in
the upper echelons of the organization, such as the Board of Directors and higher-level
managers must be visible to the organization (Sims, 2003). The integrity and honesty of
organizational leadership are perceived by employees to be important characteristics of a
leader (Corporate Executive Board, 2003). A study that was conducted by the Council
surveyed 8,000 leaders regarding the important attributes of leaders. Sixty-one percent of
the respondents selected honesty and integrity as the most important qualities of a leader
(p. 1). Further, the creation of an ethical culture is largely dependent on ethical leadership
(Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006; Lennick & Keil, 2005); Sims, 2003; Trevino, 2007). Trevino
(2007) suggests;
Ethical leadership is vital to creating an ethical workforce. It is a myth that
employees are fully formed moral agents who can ‘lead themselves’ when it
comes to ethics. Research indicates that most employees look outside themselves
to significant others for guidance in ethical dilemma situations. If this leadership
and guidance is not provided by the leaders of the organization, employees will
seek it elsewhere, most likely from peers. (p. 1)
Institutionalization of Ethics
Paine (1997) suggests that “Building and maintaining organizational integrity
around a sense of purpose, responsibility, and shared ideals is a far greater challenge then
setting up a legal compliance program … rather, organizational integrity must be based
on an ethical framework” (p. 99). The quest to increase the understanding of ethics and
ethical conduct pertaining to organizations continues to be a challenging pursuit for
researchers, trainers, and teachers of ethics (Giacalone & Thompson, 2006; Sims 2002).
42
Many scholars believe that theory plays an important role in both formal and informal
practice because it provides the assumptions about how things (systems, organizational
dynamics) work and informs the actions of practitioners (Tschudy, 2006). Key theoretical
bases and concepts that inform the process of institutionalizing ethics are (1) ethics, (2)
adult learning, and (3) organizational culture.
Thoms (2008) suggests that organizational leaders must be involved in building
the organization’s value system by developing, and aligning the organization, with an
ethical framework and leading by example. The concept of integrating ethics in the
workplace has been described in different theoretical frameworks by scholars
representing the fields of business management, philosophy, and human resource
development. Although their emphasis on specific components may differ, the
commonality of these frameworks is the goal to create, build, and maintain an ethical
organization. An exploration of several different frameworks will provide insight into the
important components of the process of instituting ethics in the workplace.
Sims (2003)
Although the federal government’s initiatives to systematize and regulate ethical
practices in corporations have addressed some ethical concerns, (ERC, 2005; Hatcher,
2002; Pearson, 1995; Sims, 2003), there are many scholars that believe that instilling
ethics in an organization goes beyond compliance-based ethics, and rather, is a process
that garners ethical practices for long-term sustainability (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006;
Clark & Lattal, 1993; Hatcher, 2002; Paine, 1997; Sims, 2003).
According to Sims (2003), the institutionalization of ethics integrates formal and
explicit ethics practices into daily business life. He purports that ethical practices
43
instituted into the workplace start with company policy initiated by the board of directors
and top management levels. Company policy is based on a formal code of ethics used to
facilitate ethical decision-making and work practices that are observed at all levels of the
organization (Sims, 2003). He suggests that organizations that are committed to
institutionalizing ethics create an ethical climate through normative behaviors and build
ethical components into the hiring, training and development, performance reviews, and
employee career paths (Sims, 2003; Van Zant, 2005).
Like Sims (2003), Van Zant (2005) promotes integrating ethics into employee
orientation, performance reviews, succession planning and other areas. The Employee
Life Cycle model (Van Zant (2005) focuses on primarily practical ways to integrate ethics
learning in the course of the employees ‘life cycle’ in the organization which would not
require exorbitant costs or resources. From an HR perspective, this model is used to
identify key areas of employee transitions where ethics can be instilled to support the
institutionalization of ethics. These include orientation and socialization, business
infrastructure, job performance, development, and succession planning. Each of these
phases is continuously being informed by teaching, communication, and performance
management. Van Zant’s (2005) uses this model to target areas of the HR system which
present logical places to integrate ethics into the organization systematically.
Organizational values and ethics shroud the components of her model, which is similar in
concept to the human resource system model proposed by Tichy, Frombrun, and Devanna
(1984).
44
Succession Planning
Development
Job Performance
Business Infrastructure
Orientation / Socialization
Outputs to Selection Process Team
Inputs (Selection Process)
Figure 2.1. Employee Life Cycle Model (Van Zant, 2005)
Clark and Lattal (1993)
Clark and Lattal (1993) argue that ethical practices in an organization are “…part
of the usual and customary way business is done” (p. 1). In their ethical framework,
organizational commitment is assumed and emphasis is placed first on the moral fortitude
of an individual that is observed through actions at work. He believes the organization
can integrate measures to support an ethical climate that enhance ethical behavior. Both
Sims (2003) and Clark et al. (1993) agree that an ethical climate promotes an ethical
culture through the normative behavior in a particular context and is concerned with the
implementation of the steps necessary to reinforce and maintain it.
Costa (1998)
Costa (1998) argues that ethics and, more specifically, moral leadership are
imperative for success in business. His perspective focuses on achieving an ethical
45
orientation in an organization, which requires six areas that are present in the
organization to align and ensure successful implementation of ethics. These areas include
(1) board of directors, (2) leadership, (3) strategic sensibility, (4) open culture, (5) group
dynamics, and (6) the individual. Costa’s multifaceted approach to aligning ethics with
these areas is the first step in the process of the institutionalization of ethics and
establishment of an ethical orientation. Of these areas listed, the term least familiar to the
previous frameworks mentioned is strategic sensibility.
According to Costa (1998) the concept of strategic sensibility relates to the act of
consciously integrating an ethical orientation into organizational strategy. He states,
“Since strategy cannot adequately prepare people for all eventualities, ethics can at least
provide a belief structure to guide the creation of solutions and the realization of new
opportunities” (p. 217). Although others have suggested that the institutionalization of
ethics is a strategy to increase organizational performance (Lennick & Keil, 2005; Paine,
1997; Sims, 2003), Costa (1998) defines it in such a way to allow flexibility and
creativity in solutions to ethically oriented challenges.
Carroll and Buchholtz (2006)
Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) believe that moral leadership exhibited at the top by
management in the organization influences organizational members to behave ethically
and is the primary factor in creating and sustaining an ethical climate in the organization.
Although an organization’s ethical climate is only a part of an organization’s culture,
ethical climate and culture have a symbiotic relationship in that the organizational culture
must support the activities and behaviors that promote an ethical climate. Like Sims
(2003), Carroll and Buchholtz imply that the ethical climate and culture of an
46
organization is predicated by the commitment level of the organizational leaders to model
ethical behavior and support the practices that promote an ethical environment. The
process in which leadership commitment to practice that encourages ethics in the
organization is referred to as institutionalizing ethics.
Based on years of studying ethics in organizations, Carroll and Buchholtz (2006)
found that organizations that exhibited ethical behavior engaged in specific activities and
practices that encouraged ethics in the in the workplace. Consequently, they developed a
framework that represents these activities and practices, which they refer to as best
practices. Their model, Best Practices for Improving an Organization’s Ethical Climate
or Culture (p. 233), reflects ethics best practices that influence the ethical climate and
culture of an organization. These include: ethics programs and ethics officers, realistic
organizational objectives, ethical decision-making processes, codes of conduct, effective
communication, discipline of violators, ethics audits, Board of Director’s oversight,
ethics training, corporate transparency, and whistle-blowing mechanisms. As depicted in
Figure 2.2, these ethics best practices are directly associated with moral leadership and
management.
Effective communication is considered a best practice to improve an
organization’s ethical climate and culture because it is a characteristic of ethical
leadership. Ethical leaders communicate openly and honesty in both written and oral
communications with candor, fidelity, and confidentiality (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006).
Candor refers to forthright sincere and honest communication without prejudice. Fidelity
describes communication as being accurate and void of deception and exaggeration.
Finally, confidentiality is an important principle in communication because it builds trust.
47
Ethical leaders and managers discriminate between information that should be disclosed
and kept confidential (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006). Further leadership and management’s
ability to set and communicate realistic objectives is important. The practice of setting
realistic objectives may help to prevent unethical behavior in the organization. Carroll
and Buchholtz suggest that unrealistic organizational goals may cause pressure for
individuals in the organization to act in unethical ways to achieve the established goals or
misrepresentation of the progress on these goals.
Ethics officers and ethics programs are both considered to be ethics best practices.
Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) suggest that ethics officers in the organization often times
are responsible for leading and managing the implementation of ethics programs in an
organization. Components of ethics programs include dissemination of codes of ethics,
training in ethical decision-making processes, recognizing ethical behavior, and
understanding the protocol for reporting unethical behavior. Codes of conduct, considered
an ethics best practice in an organization, primary purpose is to convey the ethical
standards and behavior throughout the organization. These codes of ethics make a
statement about expectations of behavior and the principles of the organization.
Effectiveness of codes of ethics is based on how these codes are communicated and used
in ethical decision-making.
Business ethics training for managers is a practice that is recommended to
promote an ethical climate and culture by (a) increasing a manager’s sensitivity towards
ethical problems, (b) encouraging critical evaluation of value priorities, (c) increasing
awareness of organizational and societal realities, (d) examining the ethical facts of
48
business decision-making, and (e) encouraging fairness and honesty in the workplace
(Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006, 247).
Other best practices include ethics audits, corporate transparency, and board of
director’s oversight of ethics in the organization. According to Carroll and Buchholtz
(2006) ethics audits and self-assessments, generally employed through a written
instrument, interviews, or committees, are intended to carefully review the organization’s
ethics initiatives (e.g. ethics programs, codes of conduct, hotlines, and ethics training
programs). Ethics audits are a method that can also be used to uncover and gain insight
into how internal stakeholders perceive managements’ commitment regarding ethics,
communication, incentive and reward systems and other management activities.
Corporate transparency is a relatively new practice that became popular in
organizations after the string of high profile corporate scandals primarily as a proactive
measure to create a reputation of honesty and openness to stakeholders and to enhance
ethics programs. Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) refer to corporate transparency “as a
quality, characteristic, or state in which activities, processes, practices, and decisions that
take place in companies become open or visible to the outside world” (p. 248). The
benefits organizations receive from adopting this practice are related to an enhanced
reputation, creditability, and stakeholder loyalty.
Finally, Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) name the Board of Directors Leadership
and Oversight as a best practice for improving an ethical climate and culture. Although it
is a fundamental responsibility of a board to ultimately oversee the ethical aspects of the
organization, many times as witnessed in the recent corporate scandals, boards of
49
directors have failed to be involved or were not privy to what is transpiring in the
organization.
Since the implementation of SOX in publicly-held corporations, there has been an
increase in board of director’s involvement in their organizations ethic programs,
primarily working with oversight of financial reporting, ensuring the organization
remains in strict compliance with federal regulations, and investigating reports of
unethical behavior in the organization (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006).
Figure 2.2. Best Practices for Improving an Organization’s Ethical Climate or Culture
This model provides a framework to study the institutionalizing of ethics and also
provide organizations with the elements that are required for a comprehensive ethics
Codes ofConduct
Discipline ofViolators
RealisticObjectives
Ethics Programs and Officers
Ethical Decision-Making Processes
Board of Director’sOversight
EthicsAudits
Ethics Training
White-BlowingMechanisms(“Hotlines”)
Corporate Transparency
EffectiveCommunication
TopManagementLeadership
MoralManagement
Used by permission of the author. Model published in: Carroll, A.B. & Buchholtz, A.K. (2006). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (p. 233, Figure 7-6). Cincinnati, Ohio: South-western.
50
program. What this model does not demonstrate is the how to implement these
components efficiently, effectively and sustainability.
Lennick and Keil (2005)
Similar to Carroll and Buchholtz (2006) perspectives on the centrality of moral
leadership and moral management in the pursuit of an ethical climate and culture,
Lennick and Keil (2005) believe that moral leadership is at the crux of organizations
behaving morally and ethically. A unique characteristic of their framework is the notion
that moral leaders posses moral intelligence. The term embodies specific moral
competencies leaders must possess that make them effective moral leaders (Lennick &
Keil, 2005). The core competencies identified in moral leaders by Lennick and Keil
originated from their extensive research of the successful behaviors of over seventy-five
top leaders of high performance companies. Their findings reflect integrity,
responsibility, compassion, and forgiveness as being four core competencies of a moral
leader and that can be promoted throughout the organization and that encourage a moral
and ethical climate.
Paine (1997)
Paine’s (1997) view of instituting ethics in an organization is the building of
organizational integrity founded on an ethical framework that focuses on three
dimensions which include (a) purpose, (b) principles, and (c) people. Purpose addresses
the articulation of the mission and goals of the organization. Principles refer to the
identification of the organizations, duties, and rights. The people aspect of this
framework is concerned with the rights, claims, and legitimate interests of the
stakeholders in the organization. Studies indicate that organizations that function by well-
51
defined values, purpose, and further observe leadership integrity (honesty, fairness, and
reliability) are more likely to enjoy organizational excellence regardless of external
factors in the environment (Paine, 1997).
Phillips (2003)
Phillips (2003) agrees that there is a need for “constructing an ethics for
organizations” (p. 41). On a philosophical level, he strongly believes that discourse exists
between moral theory, political theory, and the modern organization, and further suggests
that these dated theories are incapable to guide specific daily needs of a contemporary
organization. Phillips (2003) acknowledges the importance of an ethical construct in
which organizations function and proposes an ethical framework that includes substantive
aims, conceptual independence, and “stakeholder fairness”(p. 61). He describes
substantive aims as being prescriptive rather than descriptive which is more consistent
with other ethical models.
Substantive aims refer to the ethical direction or the organization’s position on
ethics, which allows the individuals in the organization to look at ethical concerns on a
holistic and individual basis with out predetermination. Phillips (2003) suggests that
conceptual independence refers to breaking from the assumption that organizational
ethics is based on specific moral or political theory, but, “…appeals to a plurality of
political and moral points of view without necessitating assumptions about prior political
conditions and individual attributes…” (p. 59). Further, according to Phillips (2003) the
principle of stakeholder fairness embedded in stakeholder theory provides an adequate
moral framework for organizations. The notion of organizations requiring “an ethics of
52
their own” (p. 61) suggests that the differences in organizations and individuals need to
be recognized.
Table 2.3 provides an overview of the institutionalization of ethics frameworks
discussed in this section. Most of the frameworks embrace a well-rounded perspective of
ethics in an organization. Although, Phillips (1997) and Costa (1998) place primary
emphasis on leadership and the stakeholders, in order to create the moral and ethical
leadership with concern for the stakeholders, practical initiatives must also be considered
as reflected in the other frameworks reviewed.
In Table 2.3, Foote and Ruona (2008) summarize the key components of the
institutionalization of ethics frameworks and found many similarities in the author’s
understanding and approach to instituting ethics in the workplace.
Table 2.3. Typology of Selected Institutionalization of Ethics Frameworks (Foote & Ruona, 2008)
As indicated in Table 2.3, Phillips (1997) and Costa (1998) place a greater
emphasis on the philosophical aspects of moral and fair leadership with regard to the
stakeholders of the organization. Like all scholars indicated in Table 2.3, leadership and
53
organizational culture provide a supportive ethical environment and reinforce ethical
standards of the organization. Carroll and Buchholtz (2006), Sims (2003), and Paine
(1997) look at the holistic perspective and reflect many of the tenets of federal
legislation. Hatcher (2002) framework, like others, reflects ethics as the responsibility of
the organization, its systems, structures, programs and management of these support
structures for sustaining an ethical culture.
Although helping employees learn in organizations is the primary aim of human
resource development, HRD professionals play a role in developing training programs,
structures and systems to support the organizational culture. Trevino (2007) states,
“Overall, HR and ethics managers must focus on how cultural systems fit together or
align in support of ethical conduct as a common goal” (p. 2). Yet, studies have not
confirmed the relationship between organizational culture and successful training in an
organization, which some scholars believe there is a correlation between the two (Bunch,
2007). Effective training is associated with what “…learning affects before, during, and
after training” (Bunch, 2007, p. 144). Bunch (2007) states, “Organizations spend as much
as $200 billion in the United States annually on training and development; however,
much of this investment is squandered on ill-conceived or poorly implemented
interventions…recent interest in the role of organizational context rarely extends to
organizational culture” (p. 142).
Williams and Dewitt (2005) suggest, “That is a broad sense, the organization’s
culture can predispose organization members to take right or wrong courses of action…”
(p. 114). Further, they purport that ethical climates of organizations can be on the lowest
54
level of ethics or primitive to the highest levels of ethics or principled. Ethical behavior
of individuals can shape organizational cultures and visa-a- versa.
Organizational culture in the context of ethics is described in many ways.
Meyerson and Martin (1987) posit that “Culture is often defined by what is shared by
and/or unique to a group” (p. 624). Thoms (2008) defines moral culture as “…total
organizational and cross generational behavior, built by a group of executives and their
employees, contractors, suppliers demonstrating their distinction between right and
wrong and principles or rules of right conduct” (p. 420). Further, culture in an
organization is characterized by its pattern of basic assumptions, values, norms, and
artifacts shared by the organizational members. These elements help create shared
meanings amongst members of the organization regarding work life, expectations, and
relationships (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Myerson & Martin, 1987).
Mayhew (2006) suggests that organizations are social systems that are comprised
of structures, customs, and relationships that are interconnected. He believes that all
complex organizational change begins with systems thinking. A systems thinking
approach to change is an important aspect in the process of institutionalization because it
looks at the organization as a whole and considers the events patterns, and structure of the
organization to determine where to focus activities.
Organizational Culture and Institutionalizing Ethics
The elevated interest in organizational culture is derived from its presumed impact
on an organization’s effectiveness (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Smircich, 1983). The
links between ethics, ethical climate, ethical culture, and organizational performance
have been connected with the process of institutionalizing ethics (Carroll & Buchholtz,
55
2006; Sims, 2003). Organizational culture is an important aspect of institutionalizing and
reinforcing employee learning, particularly in ethics in the workplace. Over the past two
decades the study of culture linked with organizations has increased as a result of what
Smircich (1983) refers to as the “symbolic aspects of organized setting…” (p. 339).
Thoms (2008) suggests that “…ethical standards need to be such a part of an organization
that they no longer need to be discussed they are simply there underpinning the entire
ethos of the place” (p. 425).
Elements of an Ethical Culture
Some scholars believe that organizational culture exists on three levels and
include (a) visible organizational structures and processes (artifacts), (b) strategies, goals,
philosophies (espoused values), and (c) unconscious beliefs, perceptions, thoughts,
feelings, and ultimate source of values and action (underlying assumptions) (Cummings
& Worley, 2001; Schein, 2006). Further, Bunch (2007) suggests that elements of an
organizational culture include artifacts, patterns of behavior, behavioral norms, values,
and fundamental assumptions as affecting the norms, values, and assumptions of the
organization.
Based on these elements of organizational culture, it is evident that culture plays a
key factor in the performance of the organization. Organizational culture either can
promote or hinder change initiatives. The purpose of change initiatives in organizations is
to change or modify various facets of an organizational culture such as “patterns of
behaviors, values, meanings, strategies, structure, and leadership” (Meyerson & Martin,
1987, p. 624). The symbolic nature of leadership with respect to the leaders’ influence on
organizational culture (Smircich, 1983) is a critical component of change and is often
56
reflective of a strong or weak organizational culture. Sims (2003) states, “leaders can
create, maintain, or change the culture” (p. 126) and leadership will always be the
primary influence on an organizational culture (Thoms, 2008).
Adult Learning Theories
Merriam (2001) states, “Adult Learning is probably the most studied topic in
adult education” (p. 1). The depth and breadth of adult learning theory and principles is
profound. Adult learning knows no boundaries and our understanding of it has changed
significantly based on what scholars have learned about how adults learn in different
contexts. Although early definitions of learning were recognized as a change of behavior
in an individual, Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) suggest that the essence of
learning is what transpires in an individual when the learning takes place. They propose,
“Learning is a process that brings together cognitive, emotional, environmental
influences and experiences for acquiring, enhancing, or making changes in one’s
knowledge, skills, values, and worldviews” (p. 277).
Much of adult learning in the United States takes place in a work environment.
Doornbos, Bolhuis, and Simons (2004) suggest that workplace learning is strongly
influenced by adult learning theory. For decades, strategies and/or typologies have been
developed by HRD professionals who take into account how adults learn in the context of
an organization and (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Swanson & Holton, (2001) suggest there
are metatheories, commonly referred to as orientations of learning (Merriam &
Baumgartner, 2007), that ground the theories of adult learning such as formal, informal
and incidental learning, and experiential learning.
57
Metatheories or Orientations of Adult Learning
Swanson and Holton (2001) state, “Learning has always been at the heart of
HRD, and continues to be a part of all paradigms of HRD” (p. 149). There are several key
foundational adult learning “Metatheories” (Swanson & Holton, 2001, p. 150) or
“orientations” (Merriam & Caffarella, 2007, p. 296) that inform adult learning in an
organization. These metatheories or orientations of adult learning are behaviorism,
cognitivism, humanism, social learning, and constructivism.
A behaviorist approach surmises that learning takes place when there is an
observed change in behavior as a result of a stimulus in the environment. The facilitator
of the learning “arranges the environment to elicit the desired behavior” (Merriam,
Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 296). The behavioral orientation is embedded in
HRD and training, behavioral objectives, accountability and performance, and skill
development.
A cognitive orientation perspective to learning in the workplace relates to
information processing which is directly associated with insight, memory, and perception
to develop the capacity and skills to learn better. With structured activities provided for
the learner, “…learning manifests in the learner how to learn, social roles, intelligence,
memory, and memory related to age” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p.
296). Further, the social cognitive orientation is associated with learning through
observation and interaction of others in a social context to learn new roles and behaviors.
This orientation of learning depends on the facilitator of learning modeling and guiding
new roles and behaviors and is reflected in socialization, self-directed learning, and
mentoring.
58
The constructivist orientation refers to making meaning from individual or social
construction of knowledge whereby the facilitator of learning “negotiates making
meaning with the learner” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 298). This type
of orientation is reflected in experiential and transformational learning, reflective
practice, communities of practice, and situated learning.
Lastly, the purpose of the humanist orientation of learning is to develop the whole
person and is associated with self-actualization. Further, the humanistic orientation is
embedded in Andragogy, self-directed learning, cognitive development, and
transformational learning (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).
These orientations to learning can be found in many different contexts where
adult learning opportunities exist. Although, Swanson and Holton (2001) suggest that
behaviorism and cognitivism are the core metatheories of the HRD theoretical
framework, HRD draws from all or some of the metatheories which provide an “eclectic
blend” to fit the circumstances (p. 150).
Organizational Learning
Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) suggest that “organizational
learning is a flexible concept spanning a number disciplines and perspectives…” (p. 43).
They suggest that organizational learning is concerned with “how to incorporate learning
into a changing and organization’s practices and culture” (p. 43). The impact of the
external environmental factors on organizations has resulted in accelerated changes in
technology, diversity in the workforce, and downsizing that require new strategies for
employees to efficiently, and effectively, keep pace with the changing environment
(Swanson & Holton, 2001; Senge, 1990).
59
Organizational learning is defined as an area of knowledge within organizational
theory that studies models and theories about the way an organization learns
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.Organizationallearning, 2009, p. 1). Since the mid-1970’s
scholars have studied learning in an organizational context to understand the link between
individual learning and organizational learning. Casey (2005) states, “For decades
individual learning in organizations has been seen as a critical component to an
organization’s capacity to change and survive overtime” (p. 131).
Argyris and Schőn’s (1978) theory of single-loop and double-loop learning
suggests that individuals, groups or organizations modify their actions based on expected
versus obtained outcomes in an organization. March and Olson (1975) link individual
learning to organizational learning and theorize that individual beliefs lead to individual
action which may lead to organizational action. Kim (1993) synthesizes the two
preceding theories of organizational learning into a single comprehensive model.
Recognizing that individual learning is a prerequisite for organizational learning
to exist, individual learning must be fostered and captured to ensure the learning is useful
to an organization. Some scholars believe that organizational learning is exhibited as
continuous improvement, competence, acquisition, and experimentation qualities.
Elkjaer (2004)
Elkjaer (2004) suggests there is a “third way” organizational learning can be
approached. She defines the third way as a synthesis of the first and second ways of
organizational learning; the first being the acquisition of knowledge and analytic and
communicative skills, and the second, learning through participation in communities of
practice and all takes place in “social worlds” (p. 420).
60
Knowledge and the transference of knowledge in an organization are critical
components of the third way of organizational learning. Some scholars propose that there
are several types of knowledge that is embedded in the concept of organizational
learning. Blackler (1995) categorizes knowledge types that he believes are indicative of
all organizations and identifies these types as (a) embrained knowledge, (b) embodied
knowledge, (c) enclutured knowledge, (d) embedded knowledge, and (e) encoded
knowledge.
Embrained knowledge is associated with conceptual skills and cognitive abilities.
Blackler (1995) describes this category to represent practical, high-level knowledge
where objectives are achieved through on-going recognition and re-evaluation. Although
tacit knowledge is considered to subsist on a subconscious level, it can also be part of
embrained knowledge.
Embodied knowledge refers to actions in relationship to contextual practices,
social acquisitions, and how individuals interpret and interact within the particular
context. Blackler (1995) refers to this also being non-explicit type of knowledge.
Enclutured knowledge is process-oriented and is related to achievement of shared
understandings derived from socialization and acculturation. Embedded knowledge is
explicit and is associated with systems and is embedded in formal procedures, roles,
technologies, and emerging routines within a complex system. The last category, encoded
knowledge, relates to the information that is conveyed in the artifacts in an organization.
Artifacts can include signs and symbols and alludes to the transmission and storage of
knowledge.
61
Organizational learning is concerned with the practical side of ensuring the
transmission of knowledge throughout an organization and is the process for the
organization, creation, and the capture of knowledge so it is available and easily accessed
for individuals in an organization. Methods for capturing knowledge and experience are
exemplified in publications, activity reports, lessons learned, interviews, and
presentations. In addition, the term “capturing” refers to the storage of knowledge for
easy access. Repositories, libraries, and databases are examples of how organizations
store knowledge.
Other ways an organization can transfer knowledge for learning purpose is
through search engines, communication, network infrastructure, communities of practice
and consulting experts. The fourth tenet of organizational learning is the mobilization of
knowledge. This pertains to the integration of relevant knowledge sources to address
issues and resolve problems. The key aspect of organizational learning is the interaction
that takes place among individuals and leads to organizational learning.
Moreover, Elkjaer (2004) believes that the focus of a learning organization should
be spent more on individual acquisition of knowledge and skills and participation in the
organization, rather than focusing on the individuals’ organizational paradigm related to
systems approach. Elkjaer states, “In a social worlds understanding of organizations,
individuals and organizations are understood as being mutually constituted and
constituting the ‘systematic’ order of organizational actions and interactions kept together
by individuals and groups commitment to organizational life and work.” (p. 420).
Swanson and Holton (2001) suggest that there is a differentiation between
organizational learning and learning in an organization. Organizational learning is related
62
to systems in an organization and is the intentional use of learning processes on the
individual, group, and system to continually transform the organization in positive ways.
Others believe that organizational learning is the accumulative knowledge that is
present deep within the organizational culture and systems and are reflected in the
organization’s rules, roles, routines, procedures, and shared values. In addition,
organizational learning has been described by some scholars as a social process which is
affected by contextual factors that influence how individuals learn in an organization
(Antonacopoulou, 2006; Casey, 2005).
Senge (1990) characterizes organizational learning as an area of knowledge
within organizational theory that studies models and theories about the way an
organization learns and adapts, promotes and rewards collective learning. Yet, Marsick
and Watkins (1999) suggest that a “learning organization” actively (a) creates, (b)
captures, (c) transfer, and (d) mobilizes knowledge to enable it to adapt to a changing
environment for the individual employee.
Learning in an Organization
Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) suggest “The concepts of
organizational learning and learning in an organization are so interrelated that is so
difficult to speak of one without reference to another” (p. 42). In addition, they suggest
that the concept of learning in an organization is being referred to as “…adaptive,
resilient, and innovative organizations…” (p. 45).
Marsick and Watkins (1999) suggest that a learning organization actively (a)
creates, (b) captures, (c) transfers, and (d) mobilizes knowledge to enable it to adapt to a
changing environment for the individual employee. Senge (1990) popularized the concept
63
learning organization in the early 1990’s. His unique approach to learning in an
organization is derived from organizational development, systems, and cognitive theories.
Senge (1990)
Senge (1990) suggests that there are ways to specifically create and sustain
learning in an organization. His model reflects prescribed components that help
individuals’ ability to think of organizations as systems to promote the practice of
continuous learning in an organization. These are (1) systems thinking, (2) personal
mastery, (3) mental models, (4) building a shared vision, and (5) team learning.
First, Senge (1990) suggests systems thinking is related to the way individuals
think. He states, “Business and other human endeavors are also systems. They too, are
bound by invisible fabrics of interrelated actions, which often take years to fully play put
their effects on each other…and to see the patterns of change” (p. 7). Further, he explains
that “Systems thinking is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that
has been developed over the past fifty years, to make the full patterns clearer, and to help
us see how to change them effectively.” (p. 7)
Second, personal mastery refers to the processes “…of continually clarifying and
deepening our personal vision, of focusing personal energies, of developing patience, and
seeing reality objectively. As such, it is an essential cornerstone of the learning
organization, as it is the learning organization’s spiritual foundation (Senge, 1990, p. 7).”
Third, Senge (1990) states that “…mental models are deeply ingrained in
assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we
understand the world and take action” (p. 8). An important aspect of this particular
64
discipline is that individuals must have the ability to engage in productive and insightful
conversations while exhibiting balance between “inquiry and advocacy” (p. 8).
The fourth and fifth disciplines pertain to building a shared vision and team
learning respectively. Shared vision typically starts with the leaders of an organization.
They create the vision and mission of the organization, goals, objectives, and a set of
principles and practices for the organization. Senge (1990) states, “When there is a
genuine vision, people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they
want to” (p. 9). He characterizes team learning as individuals dialoguing as a group and
thinking as a group, recognizing the patterns of logic in problem solving and creativity.
Senge’s groundbreaking conceptual framework that defines a learning organization has
caused other scholars to study and conceptualize alternative perspectives of
organizational learning.
Marsick and Watkins (1993)
Marsick and Watkins (1993) suggest that a learning organization is an entity that
is always learning and transforming itself and is where learning is a continuous strategic
process integrated in to the workplace. Like Senge’s (1990) model, their perception of a
learning organization acknowledges individual, group, and organizational learning. They
suggest that learning in an organization reflects “total employee involvement in a process
of collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared
values or principles” (p. 4).
Their perspective suggests that learning is a continuous process and one of a
social nature. Their model of the learning organization reflects six imperatives that
perpetuate learning. These include (1) the creation of learning opportunities, (2) the
65
promotion of inquiry and dialogue, (3) the encouragement of collaboration and team
learning, (4) the establishment of systems to capture and shared vision, (5) the
empowerment of people toward a collective vision, and (6) development of the
organization and its environment.
Individual Learning in an Organization
Chiva and Alegre (2005) suggest that “When it comes to organizational learning,
most authors have looked at how individuals in organizations learn, or have analyzed
how individual learning theories could be applied to organizational learning” (p. 52).
Individual learning can take place in an organization, institution, or any activity in
any context. Merriam and Baumgartner (2007) suggest there are many theories that have
been developed to explain individual learning in adults in addition to formal learning.
Some scholars believe that individuals learn through self-directed, informal and
incidental learning, and experiential and reflection.
Formal Learning
Most of the literature on individual learning in the past few decades has
primarily focused on formal learning (Casey, 2005). Formal learning is characterized by
programs that are highly structured. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) suggest that formal
learning is generally distinguished by and provided by educational institutions. Formal
learning has been a traditional way of training and developing employees in the
workplace and used to educate and train the workforce to facilitate change initiatives and
other unexpected changes that require new skills and knowledge (Casey, 2005). Further,
Casey (2005) suggests that “Traditional individual learning in organizations is seen as an
outcome of training and development programs in classrooms” (p. 133).
66
Eraut (2000) recognizes that formal learning must exist in organizations, but
concludes that most of the learning in the workplace is non-formal learning. In addition,
he suggests that formal and non-formal learning have distinctive characteristics, which
are inherent in the strategies. The primary difference is in the intent to learn and the
whether or not the learning is implicit, reactive, or deliberative. Further, he promotes the
notion that “…implicit knowledge is more powerful than explicit knowledge, which he
believes is accessed through observation, induction, and increasing participation rather
than formal inquiry” (p. 122).
The facilitation of formal learning programs and activities in organizations,
historically, has been the role of HRD. Bierema and Eraut (2004) suggest the profession
has been defined by providing “training, career development and organization
development activities” (p. 53). These formal learning programs influence the
organization in efforts “to build the capacity in individuals, teams, and organization with
a systematic approach with a long-term focus.” (p. 54).
Illeris’s (2002) model, Learning Processes and Dimensions, presents a unique
way in understanding the impact of society, environment, cognition, and emotion in an
individual. He describes society as being where all learning takes place. Illeris (2002)
places emphasis on societal impact on learning. In a social context the interaction
between the individual and the individual’s social context “shapes individual learning”
(Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 97). Environment alludes to the
interaction, participation, cooperation, and communication an individual experiences.
Cognitive and emotion are “internal process” that relates “to knowledge and skills and
feeling and motivations” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).
67
Self-Directed Learning
Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) define self-directed learning as “a
process of learning, in which people take the primary initiative for planning, carrying out,
and evaluating their own learning experiences” (p. 110). Self-directed learning can
transpire both in and out of an organizational and institutional context and is an important
way of learning in adult life (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).
Many scholars throughout the years have developed models that explain self-
directedness as linear and interactive. Linear models were developed by Tough (1971)
and later, Knowles (1975). These early models of self-directed learning describe steps
that individuals transition through in the process of planning their learning. Tough’s
model included over ten steps he perceived individuals would go through in making
personal decisions about when and where the learning would take place, resources
required to implement learning, and the potential barriers to the self-planned learning
(Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Knowles’ (1975) model reflects six steps
that he believes are essential in self-directed learning. They are (1) climate setting, (2)
diagnosing learning needs, (3) formulating learning goals, (4) identifying human and
material resources for learning, (5) choosing and implementing appropriate learning
strategies, and (6) evaluating learning outcomes (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner,
2007).
Interactive models of self-directed learning were later developed by Spear
(1988), Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), and Garrison (1997) which focused less on a well-
planned linear process and more on the context, and the opportunities for learning with
68
the context. The interactive models focus more on the individual’s personality, cognitive
abilities, motivation, and previous knowledge (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2007).
The premise of Spear’s Model (1991) was founded on three elements. These
elements include (1) opportunities in the environment that an individual recognizes as an
opportunity to learn, (2) past and present knowledge, and (3) unexpected occurrences
(Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Brockett and Hiemstra’s (1991) model
focuses on the self-direction in learning and instructional processes and personality of the
individual. The learner assumes responsibility for their own learning and “thoughts and
actions” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 113). Garrison’s Model (1997),
dimensions of self-directed learning suggests that there are four key elements. These are
(1) motivation, (2) self-monitoring, (3) self-management, and (4) self-directed learning.
These key elements as shown in Figure 2.3, illustrate how individuals start with engaging
in a task, taking responsibility of the task to be learned, controlling the speed and
environment in which individual learns and becomes self-directed (Merriam, Caffarella,
& Baumgartner, 2007). Self-directed learning is not limited to a specific context and is
becoming more common in the workplace with the advance of technology and the
emerging global marketplace.
69
Figure 2.3. Dimensions of Self-Directed Learning
Informal and Incidental Learning
The changing landscape of technology of organizations is impacting the nature of
learning in an organization, particularly on formal and informal learning. In fact,
“…given the distributed, asynchronous nature of technology-facilitated interactions, more
may be learned incidentally by learners reading between the lines” (Marsick & Watkins,
2001, p. 32).
There is an increased awareness that much valuable learning happens informally
on the job, in groups, or through conversations. Marsick, Watkins, Wilson, and Volpe
(2006) suggest, “Leaders and employees of today’s organizations typically assume
increasing responsibility for their own and their organization’s learning…much of that
learning is informal or incidental learning” (p. 794). Fenwick (2003) suggests that there is
70
a debate among some scholars whether informal learning and experiential learning are
similar. She says experiential learning in the context of the workplace is often thought of
as informal learning or ‘practice-based learning’.
Cseh, Watkins and Marsick (1999) developed a model that depicts the process of
learning in the workplace where learning is essential to keep up with the demands of
change. Figure 2.4 illustrates the process between the individual and the context in which
learning transpires, reflecting both informal and incidental learning.
Source: M. Cseh, K.E. Watkins, and V. J. Marsick, “Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, 1998. Figure 2.4. Reconceptualized Informal and Incidental Learning Model
71
The circle in the center represents their belief that learning grows out everyday
encounters while working and living in a given context. The outer circle represents the
context in which the experience occurs. The remaining rectangles and arrows throughout
the model represent the progression of learning. The learning process starts with triggers
in the environment and may or may not be linear or sequential.
Based on an extensive review of the literature, Cseh, Marsick, Wilson, and Volpe
(1999) found that seventy-percent of the workforce learning that transpires in
organizations is informal. Marsick and Volpe (1999) suggest that the characteristics of
informal learning include activities that are “intentional but not highly structured”
(Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 25) and usually take place during the individual’s daily
activities. Informal learning usually happens “…when people face challenges, problems,
or unanticipated needs” (p. 4). Examples of informal learning differ from incidental
learning and include “self-directed learning, networking, coaching, mentoring,
performance planning that includes opportunities to review learning needs” (Marsick &
Watkins, 2001, p. 26).
The theory of communities of practice “provides insight into how people interact
around common interests, and hence, can be used to better leverage informal and
incidental learning by providing support, structures, and incentives for this kind of
learning” (Cseh, Marsick, Wilson, & Volpe, 2006, p. 799). To support such learning, one
needs to build a learning climate and culture. Climate and culture are built by leaders and
other key people who learn from their experiences, influence the learning of others, and
create an environment of expectations that shapes and supports desired results that in turn
get measured and rewarded (Marsick & Watkins, 2003, p. 134). Based on earlier works
72
of Dewey (1936) and Lewin (1946), Marsick and Watkins (2003) explain how people
engage in the culture of learning. They describe the process of informal and incidental
learning:
Learning takes place when disjuncture’s, discrepancies, surprises, or challenges
act as triggers that stimulate response. Individuals select a strategy or action based
on cognitive and affective understanding of the meaning of the initial trigger.
Once a strategy or plan of action is determined, the individual implements the
strategy. The strategy then either works or does not work as expected. When it
does not work, there is dissonance and the cycle is triggered again. (p. 134)
Marsick and Watkins (2003) suggest that there is an “implicit filtering” phase that
the individual passes through filtering the experience through perceptions, values, beliefs,
bounding the situation in past experiences and social context” (p. 134). They suggest that
an individual’s behavior can be constrained by other influences in the organization such
as the individual’s skill-set, authority figures, power, and resources. Individuals may or
may not perceive they have learned from the process of make meaning from the positive
or negative consequences that they endure based on their actions. Marsick and Watkins
(2003) suggest this cycle of individual learning repeats itself whenever triggers happen in
the workplace.
Critical Reflection
Informal and incidental learning can be enhanced by critical reflection to surface
tacit knowledge and beliefs because these types of learning tend to be unstructured and
learners may not always see the situation clearly (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Critical
reflection is an important aspect of the adult learning process. According to Mezirow
73
(2000) there are three types of processes that define critical reflection. These are (1)
content reflection, (2) process reflection, and (3) premise reflection. Content reflection
involves the individual reflecting upon their actual experience. Process reflection is the
thought process that considers ways to reconcile the experience, and premise reflection
takes into consideration the examination of the individual’s assumption, beliefs and
values held about the experience. Critical reflection is a component of learning through
experience, as well as collaboration with others. As learners participate in their
community of practice (such as the workplace), reflection on their experiences can affect
future actions, decision-making, and changes in behavior or practices (Merriam,
Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).
Experiential Learning
The theory around experiential learning did not gain popularity amongst scholars
until early-1980. One of the first scholars to suggest experience plays a significant role in
an individual’s learning and development stems from early research conducted by Piaget
(1923). Based on his findings, he theorized learners follow age-specific developmental
stages. Research continued to explore learning though the lens of cognitive and humanist
theoretical perspectives and found that life experience was an internal experience-based
process (Kelly, 2009). In the early 1980’s, Kolb (1984) suggested that the core of all
learning was associated with how an individual processes their experiences, which leads
to reflection and then to action (Kelly, 2009).
Kolb’s (1984) concept of experiential learning is thought of as cycles, which
begins with the individual engaged in a concrete learning experience. The individual then
passes through an observation and reflection phase examining his/her experiences. The
74
next phase is where the individual forms their own theories about what they experienced
and lastly, the individual uses his/her theories for personal decision-making and problem
solving. Kolb (1984) further defined his model by including abstract conceptualization
and active experimentation. Abstract conceptualization is connected with the critical
reflection part of learning and refers to the individual asking questions about past
experiences to determine if the present experience relates to past experiences. The Active
experimentation phase is when the individual employs the action that he concluded was
the appropriate action.
Figure 2.5. Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Model
Although, some scholars argue that Kolb’s model did not recognize goals and
objectives in the process of learning, Kolb’s research on experiential learning placed the
locus of control more on the learner and less on the instructor (Kelly, 2009). Scholars
have found over the decades of studying experiential learning that this perspective of
learning is multidimensional and it engages the learner physically, mentally, and
emotionally (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2005). The process of experiential learning is
75
highly individualized to the extent that the learner has experiences, reflects upon each
experience, and develops knowledge each time (Fenwick, 2003). Doornbos et al. (2004)
suggest that circumstances control experiential learning and states,
…it is not so much a teacher or trainer or even predetermined goals that control
the learning, but rather circumstances, personal motives, the ideas of others,
discoveries, experiments and so forth. Learning is a side effect of the activities
one undertakes, and an explicit set of learning goals simply does not exist
(p. 251)
Other models have emerged in the experiential learning literature in the last
decade. Fenwick’s (2000) model of experiential learning is comprised of five
perspectives. They are (1) reflection, (2) interference, (3) participation, (4) resistance, and
(5) co-emergence.
The first perspective, reflection, is grounded in the Constructivist perspective.
Fenwick (2000) describes reflection as individualized learning where the individual
reflects on each experience they have, and develops knowledge each time. She suggests
that critics of her model view it as too simplified and do not consider the individuals’
desire to learn, the learning environment, and the ability to learn without a conscious
effort.
The second perspective in Fenwick’s (2000) model is termed interference. She
purports that “Learning is derived from interactions in both the conscious and
unconscious mind as they wrestle to make sense of the individual’s environment” (p. 1).
Some critics suggest that this explanation of interference relies too heavily on internal
76
factors and learning is referred to as solely a cerebral function with out reference to
socially constructed environment.
The third perspective is participation. Fenwick (2000) states “Learning is
derived through physical activities and tasks” (p. 2). This means that individuals learn
through participating and interacting with community, providing resources, and activities.
Again, critics argue that participation is “too dependent on dependency” and the
inequality of resources exists for individuals, learning can take place conceptually and
does not need physical activity for learning to occur.
The fourth perspective is resistance, which Fenwick (2000) suggests is cultural in
nature. It alludes to the power structure of dominance among learner, teacher and the
environment significantly affecting learning. Further, critics of this perspective and the
fifth perspective suggest that individuals can be deeply embedded and defined by their
environment making it hard to deviate from these environmental factors. The fifth
perspective, co-emergence, and suggests learning occurs through cognitive and sensory
analysis. The mind and the environment work in concert to foster learning. Fenwick says
“…that the individual’s presence alone impacts his or her environment” (p. 2).
Fenwick (2000) suggests, “Models of experiential learning exemplify learning as a
process in which concepts are derived and continuously modified by experience” (p. 4).
Swanson and Holton (2001) suggest that HRD professionals recognize that
experiential learning is a valuable strategy in improving performance in an organization.
Some techniques that are used to build on an individual’s experience-base in the
workplace are on-the-job training, mentoring, simulation, group interaction, and
environmental awareness.
77
Relevance of HRD and Ethics in the Workplace
Helping adults learn in an organizational context is a primary role of HRD in an
organization. With the growing importance of ethical behavior in organizations as well as
the need to sustain an ethical culture, it is imperative for HRD professionals to be actively
engaged in the planning, design and implementation and management of ethics initiatives
in the workplace Hatcher (2002). Hatcher (2002) describes a new agenda developed for
ethics and social ethics [social responsibility] in the workplace has been a particular
interest to some scholars in the field of HRD. This interest, in part, is a result of the
changing organizational roles in general and the wide spread movement to incorporate
ethics into organizations.
Ethics in the workplace has been a particular interest to some scholars in the field
of HRD. This interest, in part, is a result of the changing organizational roles in general
and the widespread movement to incorporate ethics into organizations. Furthermore the
widespread use of human resources (HR) professionals to administer ethics policies and
programs in the workplace (SHRM, 2005) has also impacted the nature of the roles and
responsibilities HR traditionally perform with an organization. A recent study reported
that 69% of the HR professionals serve as the primary ethics resource in their
organizations, 71% of HR professionals are involved in formulating ethics policies, and
40% of the HR professionals surveyed disclosed their function seemed to be one handling
the ethical dilemmas in the organization (SHRM/ERC, 2003). As a result, human
resource development (HRD) professionals are becoming increasingly involved in
assisting the organization in the administration of compliance and ethics training. Trevino
(2007) states,
78
It is important for HR managers to work with the ethics/compliance office to
follow up on employees’ ethics concerns because a large percentage of reported
concerns are fairness and therefore HR system-related. Most employees equate
ethics and fairness; for them, there is no bright line between the ethics and HR
offices (p. 2)
Hatcher (2002) believes that ethics should be a “primary focus for HRD research
and practice” (Hatcher, 2002, p. 204). Within this framework he encourages HRD
professionals to take responsibility for helping lead and manage ethics in the workplace.
He believes it is imperative for HRD involvement in establishing a climate of integrity,
keeping an organization ready for change, and making ethics a priority in HRD (Hatcher,
2002). He suggests that having an ethics code and training is not sufficient in an
organization. He states, “We must move beyond talking about ethical culture and values
to implementing specific systems that proactively reinforce ethical and responsible values
through measures, rewards and punishment, and employee learning and development”
(Hatcher, 2002, p. 44).
Although ethics are intentional acts in organizations (Sims, 2003) reactions to
unethical behavior that occurs in an organization should be intentional as well.
Organizations must have a systematic approach, which clearly identifies the resources
needed to develop the organizational structure and systems to accommodate ethics
procedures and communication to employees (Cummings & Worley, 2001) in order to
for employees to react consistently towards ethical dilemmas.
How organizations implement ethics for long-term sustainability is unclear, but
debates among scholars infer this task requires competent individuals whom are trained
79
in facilitating initiatives within the workplace (Hatcher, 2002). Because of the inherent
characteristics of these professions and the roles they play in organizations HR, HRD,
and OD are highly relevant to this study as a means to inform the institutionalization of
ethics across organizations.
The Evolving Role and Core Competencies of the HR, HRD, & OD Professions
The core competencies of the HR, HRD, and OD professions are clearly evolving
to meet the demands of the contemporary organization. Meeting the demands of
organizations today requires HR, HRD, and OD professionals to be strategic thinkers,
planners, and facilitators of change. In addition, recent models delineating the field
increasingly emphasize a stakeholder approach as well as increased involvement in ethics
and long-term sustainability of organizations.
HR, HRD, and OD have evolved considerably since the early-1970 when HRD
recognized increasingly being a profession. The field of HRD was built on the core
competencies of training and development (Nadler, 1970). These competencies have
evolved and continue to be a focal point of scholarly discourse. Although there have been
many models of HRD proposed over the past thirty years, more recent models within the
past 10-15 years have increasingly emphasized the incorporation of strategic components
into the role and competencies expected of HRD professionals. This strategic orientation
lends well to the institutionalization process, which requires transformational change and
strategic leadership.
McLagan (1987)
In her landmark study of the professions, McLagan (1987) defined the function of
HRD as the “integrative use of training and development, organizational development,
80
and career development to improve individual, group, and organizational effectiveness”
(p. 7). Based on this belief regarding the function of HRD in the workplace, she
developed a model that the key domains of HRD were (a) training and development, (b)
organizational development, and (c) career development. Within these domains, the roles,
which included HRD manager, administrator, researcher, marketer, organization change
agent, needs analyst, program designer, HRD materials developer, instructor/facilitator,
individual career development, and evaluator.
Although, this model enjoys longevity in the literature and is still the most
commonly used model to explain the scope of the profession, in 1996 McLagan modified
her model to include competencies to reflect the changing focus of HRD from individual
learning to organizational learning as the primary thrust in the field. Based on her
reflection of the future competencies and trends for HRD, McLagan (1996) identifies
several roles that are essential for HRD professionals to perform in the workplace. These
roles include HR strategic advisor, HR systems designer and developer, organization
change and design consultant, learning program specialist, and performance consultant.
McLagan (1996) concludes that through its new roles, HRD’s function within an
organization may be in a strategic position to promote ethics and morality.
Swanson & Holton (2001)
Swanson and Holton (2001) suggest the purpose of HRD is to improve
organizational performance through the process of developing and empowering
individuals through organization development and training and development. The core
competencies of practice include training and development, employee development,
technical training, management development, executive and leadership development,
81
human performance technology, and organizational development/learning. Further,
Swanson and Holton suggest that the core OD practices are associated with change
practices, trust and integrity in OD, and OD dynamics.
Gilley and Maycunich (2000) developed principles that reflect effective HRD
practice. Although not an exhaustive list of their principles they suggest to promote the
effective practice of HRD, the following principles reflect on those that are strategic in
nature. They are (a) transformation of strategic HRD, (b) organizational learning, (c)
analysis, design, and evaluation, (d) organizational change, (e) organizational
performance, and (f) strategic HRD leadership. They contend that the practice of HRD
draws from many theoretical foundations, bases actions on stakeholder needs and
partnerships, focuses on being responsive, responsible, and results-oriented, and utilizes
strategic planning to help the organization.
Ulrich & Brockbank (2006)
Further, Ulrich and Brockbank (2006) use the phrase “value proposition” (p. 10) to
bring to the forefront the importance of HR responsiveness to organizational and
stakeholder needs. They believe for HR to effectively influence and impact the
organization they must understand the make-up of the stakeholders that receive services
from HR and understand their goals and values. They conducted a landmark study over a
period of 15 years with survey data of 25,000 people and concluded that there are five
key areas that make a difference in HR competencies and overall effectiveness in an
organization. These areas include (1) strategic contribution (2) HR delivery, (3) business
knowledge, (4) personal credibility, and (5) HR technology (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2006).
82
Under each of these categories are sub-sets that further define each category based on HR
professionals’ work in high performance companies demonstrate.
Since the 1990’s scholars in the field of HRD have argued that the role and
function of HRD in an organization be broadened to assume a more strategic role.
Garavan (2007) presents the most recent model for strategic human resource
development (SHRD), which he describes as “multi-level and focusing on the interaction
between context, HRD processes, stakeholder satisfaction, and characteristics of the HRD
profession” (p. 11). This model is concerned with the organization’s knowledge and
skills, organizational values and norms, evaluation of organizational strategies, and how
HRD systems, policies, and practices incorporate the multiple perspectives of
stakeholders.
Garavan’s (2007) model share similarities of the models previously discussed,
but it focuses more acutely on organizational performance, organizational learning,
organizational change, and stakeholder satisfaction. Also, it reflects core competencies
that overlap, linking the functions of HRD and OD closer together. Further, HRD’s
particular interest in the perspectives of employees and fostering a cooperative
relationship is an important aspect of enabling ethical systems and practices in the
process of institutionalizing ethics.
Although these models are highly descriptive, Worley (2001) defines
organizational development as a “process or system with application of behavioral
science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of
strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organizational effectiveness. OD is
relevant in the institutionalization of ethics in an organization because of its role and deep
83
theoretical foundations that promote planned change on all levels of an organization. Of
the various professions, it is imperative to demonstrate the importance of HR, HRD, and
OD professionals as strategic partners in an organization in the process of
institutionalizing ethics. Further, these models help to illustrate the crossover functions of
HR, HRD, and OD. Ruona and Gibson (2005) suggest “the evolutions of these fields help
to explain why the distinctions between them continue to blur and how the similarities
among them provide the necessary synergy for HR to be a truly valued organizational
partner” (p. 49).
Summary of Chapter
The institutionalization of ethics process in an organization is informed by
theories of ethics, adult learning, organizational learning, and other theories that influence
the core competencies of HRD. These theories intersect to provide the foundation that
supports the philosophical assumptions and practical guidance to facilitate the process
that organizations must go through to build and foster an ethical climate and culture and
to use strategies to help individuals to learn ethics.
Pearson (1995) suggests that “People in business operate in an ethically
ambiguous environment” (p. 23). He believes that a significant contributing factor that
supports an ambiguous environment stems from the decision-making of individuals in
positions of power whose “autonomy and freedom to exercise their own personal value
systems, for good or ill” (Pearson, p. 23). Ethics and moral theories can provide the
rationale and reasoning for ethical decision-making, resolving ethical dilemmas, and
understanding how organizational and leadership decisions impact the organization on
individual, organizational, and societal levels (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006).
84
The increasing need for organizations to develop an ethical consciousness (Sims,
2003) has been the impetus for business schools to develop both technical as well as
moral leaders (Sims, 2002). Further, it can be argued that a key aspect of developing
good leadership is the development of good ethical judgment. The ethics movement
prevalent in the past two decades has prompted ethicists in business and other fields to
explore the applicability of moral philosophy in relationship to the function of
organizations and the individuals who lead them (Pearson, 1995).
Third, theories that inform HRD relevant to understanding and fostering the
institutionalization of ethics were discussed. Similarly, the characteristics of HRD,
SHRD, and OD seem to overlap in definition and organizational functions.
In a recent study, Ruona and Gibson (2005) conduct a historical analysis of the
change witnessed over the years in the various disciplines of HR, HRD, HRM, and OD.
After a through analysis of the state of each discipline, they conclude that these
disciplines have evolved in the contemporary organization to reflect cross-over functions
in an organization. Moreover, Ruona and Gibson (2005) suggest that “HR is emerging to
uniquely combine the activities and processes of human resource management, human
resource development, and organizational development …” (p. 46).
Widespread use of human resources (HR) professionals to administer ethics
policies and programs in the workplace (SHRM, 2005) has also impacted the nature of
the roles and responsibilities HR traditionally perform with an organization. Research
shows that HR and HRD professionals are becoming increasingly involved in assisting
the organization in the administration of compliance and ethics training.
85
The implications of ethics and HRD are many. There are several adult-learning
theories that HRD professionals can draw upon to inform their strategies in helping adults
learn ethics in the workplace. This chapter presented, and differentiated between the
conceptual frameworks of organizational learning and learning in an organization. Senge
(1990) and Marsick and Watkins (1993) were presented respectively. Other adult learning
theories reviewed in this chapter include formal learning, informal and incidental,
experiential learning, and critical reflection.
86
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methodology that was used in this qualitative inquiry
designed to study how employees learn ethics in the workplace. The research questions
that addressed the purpose of this study were the following:
1. What formal programs or activities do employees engage in to learn ethics?
2. What other ways do employees learn ethics in the workplace?
Design of the Study
A basic qualitative research approach was used in this study. Merriam and
Simpson (2000) describe this design as “…a type of research that is motivated by the
intellectual interest alone and is concerned with knowledge for its own sake” (p. 225).
Further, Patton (2001) suggests that “The basic researcher’s purpose is to understand and
explain” (p. 215). This approach is generally utilized in applied fields, with the intent of
the research focused primarily on improving the quality of the practice and extension of
knowledge in a field or contribution to theory of a discipline (Merriam & Simpson, 2000;
Patton, 2001). This approach allowed for creativity and flexibility in the selection of the
methodology, the methods for data collection, data analysis, and a systematic process to
study social phenomena (Creswell, 2003; Crotty, 2001; Maxwell, 2005; Merriam &
Simpson, 2000; Ruona, 2005; Schwandt, 2001).
The qualitative approach provides an “umbrella concept” which covers many
forms of inquiry to study human perceptions. Further, qualitative inquiry provides a
87
framework to study human behaviors such as communication, perceptions, and
motivations that are embedded in a specific context with minimal disruption (deMarris,
1998; Merriam, 1998).
There are several core assumptions that distinguish qualitative research from
alternative forms of inquiry compatible with the aim of this study. First is the belief that
individuals construct meaning through their experiences (Crotty, 2003). This assumption
is grounded in social constructionism, which bases meaning on social constructs derived
from observations and social interaction with the environment (Creswell, 2003; Crotty,
2001; Merriam, 1998) and knowledge that is embedded with “ideology, political, or
permeated with values” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 189).
The second assumption pertains to the researcher as the sole instrument in the
collection of data (Merriam, 1998). In this study the researcher assumed this
responsibility and appropriately employed methods for data collection that ensured a
systematic approach. The method of bracketing was used to minimize the researcher’s
personal assumptions and/or biases and their influence on the study (Creswell, 2003).
The third assumption suggests that the researcher engages in fieldwork. Fieldwork
is loosely defined as the collection of data in a naturalistic setting. In a naturalistic
setting, the researcher must respond to the circumstances of the setting while maintaining
a systematic approach to collect substantive data that can be written up in rich and
detailed descriptions (Esterberg, 2002; Merriam, 1998; Wolcott, 1998). Although the
fieldwork was conducted in an organized setting, the researcher, at times, needed to adapt
to the situation. For example, three of the participants in this study arrived late to their
interview as a result of work-related circumstances. As the researcher, a tactic that was
88
used to maintain interview schedules for the remaining participants was to reduce the
number of probes during the interview in order to cover all the questions with each
participant. If additional clarification was needed, the researcher made a note to follow-
up in the member check phase.
Fourth, qualitative research is an inductive strategy and was used by the researcher
to analyze the data. As the data emerged, the researcher implemented the appropriate data
analysis protocols that allowed for constant comparison and analysis of the data. This
process was a viable approach to employ as a result of minimal knowledge or theory in
the area already being studied (Creswell, 1998; Esterberg. 2002; Merriam, 1998).
Further, a systematic protocol was followed by the researcher which included (1)
listening to the audio-tapes and making notes, (2) reading and editing the transcripts, (3)
identifying initial patterns and themes in the data and (4) using sticky notes and a white
board to help in categorizing the data. This protocol was used several times before the
data reached a point of saturation and categories were completed (Esterberg, 2002;
Patton, 2002). Once the categories were completed initial generalizations were made
based on the findings (Merriam & Simpson, 2000).
The final assumption refers to the presentation of data. The data was written up by
the researcher, which reflected a thick and rich description of the findings. The findings
were written to give the reader understanding of the depth and breadth of the topic
studied and a holistic perspective (Merriam, 1998). Wolcott (1994) suggests that an
underlying assumption “… is that the data should speak for themselves” (p. 10) and
whenever possible prepare graphic displays for conveying data (Creswell, 1998:
Esterberg, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Wolcott, 1994). Consistent with this
89
assumption, the researcher created tables, diagrams, and figures, which emphasize
specific data (Wolcott, 1994). The researcher used tables and figures to provide visual
representations of the data and to help streamline the findings.
Theoretical Framework
Epistemological assumptions ground research. They dictate ideas of how one
comes to know the world and what one deems as knowledge. Since qualitative research
offers a variety of approaches for designing a study, the researcher makes multiple
decisions on “interrelated levels” (Creswell, 2003, p. 5) starting with the research
paradigm. This paradigm has a scaffolding effect, which provides the structure and logic
for developing the criteria for data collection, data analysis, and the interpretation of the
data (Crotty, 2001; Merriam, 1998). Two paradigms informed the approach for this study.
Constructionism
Constructionism is the paradigm used to explore how employees learn ethics in
the workplace. The term constructionism is an epistemological stream of thought that is
based on the inquiry of exploring the nature of the relationship between the knower, the
would-be knower, and what can be known (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Constructionism is
defined as all knowledge and meaningful reality that is based on “human practices, which
are constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world,
developed and transmitted within a social context” (Crotty, 2003, p. 42).
Crotty (2003) defines constructionism further by using the term social
constructionism, which refers to how human beings make meaning in their lives. Social
constructionists purport that meaning is made through the social constructs obtained and
sustained through social realities derived from observation and social interaction with
90
their environment. An assumption of social constructionism is that knowledge is
connected with one’s ideology and political views, or permeated values (Schwandt, 2001,
p. 189). Permeated values refer to the values that pervade an individual’s thinking. These
values can be exemplified in societal values, historical or cultural myths and
organizational or religious beliefs. Further, social constructs influence ideas, practices,
experiences, and beliefs that are socially bound and inherent in an organizational context
(Schwandt, 2001).
Interpretivisim
Additionally, this study is considered to be interpretive in nature because of the
synergy that exists between social constructionism and interpretivisim. According to
Schwandt (2001), interpretivisim is a synonym for qualitative inquiry, which denotes
those approaches that promote the study of social life in a specific context. The
researcher provides an interpretation of how individuals in a specific context
“…recognize, produce, and reproduce social actions and how they come to share an inter-
subjective understanding of specific life circumstances” (Crotty, 2003, p. 31-32).
Merriam (1998) notes that “…understanding the meaning of the process or experience
constitutes the knowledge gained from the inductive, hypothesis, or theory generating
mode of inquiry” (p. 4).
Sample Selection
Since the sample selection is a critical aspect of qualitative research, the
researcher selected a research site where the participants would be instrumental in
surfacing understanding and causes relative to the research topic (Creswell, 2003; Patton,
2002). According to Patton (2002), in selecting and making decisions about an
91
appropriate sample, the researcher must stay focused on the purpose of the study. In this
study, it was imperative that the researcher located a site where the participants employed
by the organization provided an information-rich and insightful dialogue for generating
rich descriptive data (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002).
Site Selection
There were several criteria used in the selection of the site for this study. The
following criterions were used to select the research site:
1. Parent organization was recently recognized for being
a top 100 Most Ethical Company by Ethisphere Magazine.
2. Employs an Ethics and Compliance Officer.
3. Organization agrees to allow a minimum a minimum of ten employees
to participate in a sixty-minute interview with the researcher and a
follow-up (member check) upon transcription of interviews via e-mail
or phone.
The organization selected for this study was located in metropolitan Atlanta. It is
a subsidiary of a conglomerate that recently was named one of the “100 Most Ethical
Companies in the World” in 2007, 2008, and 2009 by Ethisphere Magazine. The
company employs an Ethics and Compliance Officer, and provided eleven employees to
participate in the study. Access to the organization was gained through privilege.
Participant Selection
Purposeful sampling techniques were used in the selection of the participants for
this study. The assumptions that ground purposeful sampling are based on the
researcher’s desire to discover, understand, and gain insight into a particular subject
92
within a particular sample of people/or context in which the most information can be
learned (Merriam, 1998). Further, relevance of the participants to the topic being studied
was important in the sampling process. Some of the participants were selected based on
their knowledge of the organizational processes and concepts regarding ethics (Schwandt,
2001).
Prior to entry into the organization, the Vice President of Operations identified
four senior managers who he considered would provide rich information to begin the
interviewing process. In addition, the Administrative Assistant sent a mass e-mail to the
Vice President of Operations, which targeted employees that would be information-rich
participants for this study. The respondents were selected by the administrative assistant
and the Vice President of Operations based on the researcher’s desire to recruit a cross-
section of senior leaders, directors, and managers.
All participants signed two copies of the Informed Consent Form (Appendix A)
that was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). One copy was given to the
participant and the second copy was placed in the participant’s file and is being kept in a
secure place with the researcher. Prior to each interview the researcher explained the
purpose of the Informed Consent Form, the confidential nature of the interview, and the
potential risks that may occur as a result of this study. The researcher’s contact
information was reflected on the form. In addition participants were informed they could
withdraw for any reason without negative ramifications.
Further, to protect the privacy of the company, prior to entry, the Senior Vice
President of Legal who oversees ethics and compliance for the company reviewed the
Consent Form and approved it. Notification that it was approved was delivered by e-mail
93
from the Vice President of Operations. The company understood that a pseudonym would
be used for the company and further, both Vice Presidents were made aware that this
study was a doctoral dissertation and that it would be published and data may be used for
further research and/or journal articles in the future. This was a verbal understanding
prior to entry into the organization. This was also in the informed consent form.
Data Collection
Interviews were used as the primary method of data collection. Interviews are the
most common form of collecting data in qualitative research (Patton, 2002) and one of
the richest sources of data (deMarris & Lapan, 2004). Interviews are useful when
participants cannot be directly observed (Creswell, 2003). Therefore, through the
interview process, the researcher gains a better understanding of an individual’s
worldview about a specific topic or event by allowing the individual to express their
thoughts and feelings in their own words.
Interviews
Although there are a variety of interview instruments that can be used to collect
data (Patton, 2001), an interview guide was employed to ensure that all participants were
asked similar questions during the interview process. The factors that were considered in
the selection of this approach were based on the characteristics and strengths of the
interview guide as outlined by Patton (2001). The interview questions were specified in
advance in outline form and the interviewer decided the appropriate sequence and
wording of questions during the course of the interview. The use of the interview guide
was effective in that the tool increased the comprehensiveness of the data and the data
collection became somewhat systematic for each respondent. Further, the interview
94
process enabled the researcher to discuss the topic in a conversational manner (Patton,
2001).
In addition, consideration was given to the primary weakness inherent in the
interview guide approach. Patton (2001) suggests that the weakness lies in the omission
of important topics. He states, “…important and salient topics may be inadvertently
omitted and the interviewer’s flexibility in sequencing and wording questions can result
in substantially different responses from different perspectives, thus reducing the ability
comparability of responses” (Patton, 2001, p. 349). This issue cannot be resolved in its
entirety. However, to help minimize this concern, the researcher implemented memos to
note any omissions of specific issues that were not addressed by the participant or
questions that were raised during the interview. When this transpired, the researcher
would clarify the issues at the end of the interview with the participant. Further, upon
completion of the interviews, the researcher edited interview transcripts to eliminate any
data that did not address or was superfluous to the purpose of this study. The interview
guide that was used to explore how the participants learned ethics in the workplace is
provided in Appendix B.
A sixty-minute interview was conducted with each participant. During this time
period, the participant was asked questions and probed about their learning experiences
involving ethics at work. The researcher took into consideration the guidelines Patton
(2001) recommends concerning logistics for collecting raw data using recorded
interviews and the transcription of data. These guidelines discuss the use of equipment
before, during, and after the interview. The researcher implemented these guidelines
using the following actions:
95
1. Ensured that good quality digital recording equipment was used and was working
effectively by practicing a mock interview.
2. Conducted a test of the digital recorder equipment prior to each interview and
contingency batteries and an additional recorder were available.
3. All interviews were conducted either in the participant’s office or a private
conference room. This allowed for a quiet environment and minimal interruptions
during the interviews.
4. During each interview the researcher maintained awareness of the potential of the
malfunctions of equipment and appropriate voice levels and clarity of both the
interviewer and the participant.
5. The researcher acquired permission from the participant to take notes during the
interview.
All interviews were downloaded to the researcher’s computer. At that time the
researcher listened to each interview and took notes prior to sending it to be
professionally transcribed. Transcription of the interviews took place after all the
interviews were conducted. Each interview was transcribed word-for-word. In order to
expedite the member checks within a three-week timeframe, the researcher elected to use
a reputable professional transcriptionist company to streamline the process.
Confidentiality
Upon completion of the each of the interview transcriptions, the digital audio
files were labeled using an assigned pseudonym to protect the privacy of the participant’s
identity (Esterberg, 2002). A master list with the participant’s name correlating with the
participant number and their pseudonym was stored with the audio files and stored in an
96
environment at the researcher’s home to ensure the integrity and safety of the records. All
audio files and participants’ transcripts will be destroyed in December 2009.
Data Analysis
The data was collected within a six-day period. Although it is ideal to collect and
analyze data simultaneously and systematically (Merriam & Simpson, 2000) so it
becomes a “…recursive process” (Ruona, 2005, p. 237), for this study, given the
aggressive interview schedule to accommodate the research site’s time constraints, it was
difficult to do an in-depth analysis before the next day of interviews. The researcher used
memos during and immediately after the interview to reflect on interesting data that
raised questions. The next section describes the constant comapative, method that was
used in this study to analyze the data.
Constant Comparative Method
The constant comparative method, an inductive approach commonly used in
qualitative research (Ezzy, 2002), was used for the data analysis for this study. Schwandt
(2001) states, “Analysis begins with the processes of organizing, reducing, and describing
data and continues through the activity of drawing conclusions or interpretations from the
data and warranting those interpretations” (p. 6). This method refers to the continuous act
of comparing the data looking specifically for similarities and differences. Data are then
grouped together in similar dimensions, assigned categorical names, and then reviewed
by the researcher to identify patterns, themes, and categories in the data (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993; Patton 2002).
Through this process, concepts emerged from the data and focused on specific
events that were significant within the context of the research setting (Charmaz, 2002;
97
Patton, 2002). The units of data extracted from the early stages of conceptualization were
examined through coding and analysis and then further investigated (Bogdan & Bilken,
2003; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Schwandt 2001), and continuously examined through
this interactive process (Charmez, 1999; Creswell, 1998; Glaser & Straus, 1967;
LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) until theoretical saturation was achieved. Theoretical
saturation refers to category development where no new properties, dimensions, or
relationships emerge during analysis (Straus & Corbin, 1998).
The researcher used open coding as a means to organize and analyze the data from
different perspectives. The researcher started the analysis process by forming categories.
‘Sticky notes’ and a white board were used to visually see the clusters of data that
emerged. The clusters of data were further reduced into categories and, through the
analysis process categories were described in more detail (Merriam, 1998; Straus &
Corbin, 1990). Open coding captured the properties and dimensional aspects of the data
that ultimately contributed to the emergent concepts of the data (Straus & Corbin, 1990).
Data-driven codes (Boyatzis, 1998) were used during the initial phases of data analysis
and streamlined later in the analysis process.
Further, the process of open coding is characterized by the constant reduction of
data to the smallest unit of analysis without diminishing the essence of the data
(Charmaz, 1999). The tactics used in the reduction process included (a) identification of
the units of analysis, (b) coding for meanings, feelings, and actions, (c) experimenting
with codes, (d) comparing and contrasting events, actions, and feelings, (e) codes
complied into subcategories, and (f) integrating codes into more inclusive codes (Ezzy,
2001).
98
Ruona’s Data Management Protocol
To help promote a systematic approach in the organization, management, and
retrieval of meaningful data from the data collected, this study utilized an approach
developed by Ruona (2005). This process utilizes familiar word processing software that
includes easy to use tables for organizing data. Similar to other data analysis processes
(Ezzy, 2001; Miles & Huberman, 1998), the process included four phases which were (a)
data preparation, (b) familiarization of data, (c) coding, and (d) merging and working
with data to make meaning.
Using a series of tables, coded data was entered with descriptions, numbered
interview questions, and identification of the participant using a number. In addition, a
“turn number” (Ruona, 2005, p. 253), which represented a specific line, sentence, passage
or paragraph in a transcript, was automatically entered. The data from each interview
transcript had its own table. Once the data from each interview transcript had been sorted
and coded, Ruona’s (2005) process than offered directions on how to merge all coded
interviews on a large table format which allowed the researcher to sort data by the
questions, participant, and emergent themes. Figure 3.1 display’s the table to organize
data.
Code ID Q# Turn Interview Data Notes
10000 2 1 1 We are members of the General Council Roundtable (GCR).
Applicable research generated by organization
Figure 3.1. Ruona’s (2005) Data Management Table for Analysis
99
Provisions for Trustworthiness
Questions that must be answered throughout the research process focus on (a)
whether or not the findings are congruent with reality, (b) are the findings capturing what
is really there, and (c) is the researcher measuring what he/she thinks they are measuring
(Merriam, 1998). Ruona (2005) states, “It is incumbent on you [the researcher] to reflect
on what threatens the trustworthiness of your data analysis and to utilize strategies such
as these to ensure that the findings you generate are credible, consistent/dependable, and
transferable…” (p. 249). Credibility of qualitative research is dependent on rigorous
methods, credibility of the researcher, and the researcher’s philosophical stance that
supports the value of qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2002). Moreover, “trustworthiness and
authenticity” are critical factors in the rigor and credibility of the research (Lincoln &
Guba, 1994, p. 166).
Although the concepts of validity and reliability originate from quantitative
constructs in which findings can be tested or generalized against statistical data,
qualitative research is also subject to rigorous standards that help to assess its
trustworthiness and offers methods to promote internal and external reliability. A system
of ‘checks and balances’ built into the protocol of the study can enhance both validity and
reliability. Rigorous strategies can be employed in the selection of methods used to
collect and to analyze data (Creswell, 2003). This is especially important in qualitative
research because of the researcher’s interaction with people and their lives (Merriam,
1998).
100
Internal Validity
Schwandt (2001) suggests that ‘validity’ in qualitative research means that the
“…findings accurately reflect the phenomena” and the “findings are backed by evidence”
(p. 267). There are several strategies that can be employed to ensure the internal validity
of a study. This study employed member checks, memos, expert audits, and bracketing.
Member Checks. The purpose of using member checking is to determine the
accuracy of the findings by allowing the participants to review the themes or description
of the findings (Creswell, 2003). This was an important procedure for “corroborating and
verifying findings or ensuring they are valid and meet the criterion of confirmability”
(Schwandt, 2001, p. 155). Confirmability refers to the researcher establishing that the
data and interpretations of the researcher are accurate (Schwandt, 2001).
Member checks were implemented approximately two weeks after transcripts
were received by the researcher. The timing of the member checks fell around the
holidays and many of the participants were going to be out of the office. Each participant
received, via e-mail, their interview transcript for their review. Although member checks
are a way for the researcher to continue a conversation with the participant to ask further
questions regarding ambiguous or unclear participant responses, only three participants
returned e-mails stating that the transcript was an accurate account of their interview. In
addition, messages were left with four of the participants for clarification with regard to
their interviews; only one of the participants returned the researcher’s follow-up call.
Although a higher return of confirmations was expected based on the professionalism of
the company, the researcher gleaned from the time of year, the holidays and vacation
time were factors contributing to the lack of responses.
101
Memos. Ezzy (2002) suggests “Journals and memos are a systematic attempt to
facilitate the interpretive process that is at the heart of qualitative research” (p. 71). The
memos allowed the researcher to reflect upon what is transpiring in the study in
relationship to the researcher’s learning, questions, and biases that may arise. Ruona
(2005) suggests that memos can be helpful in staying engaged in how the researcher
influences the study. Memos were used concurrently during collection and data analysis
phases in this study (Ezzy, 2002).
The researcher took memos during each interview. Notes were jotted down on a
pad of paper and organized per participant. Some interviews required less notes then
others. Extensive notes were not taken because the researcher wanted to ensure full
attentiveness to the participant and the questioning process during the interview. Memos
were also used while listening to the interviews for the first time. These memos were
much more extensive and played a role in the follow-up member checks with the
participants. The researcher consulted the memos during the data analysis phase for
supplementing the data. Sticky notes were used to note interesting perspectives,
contradictory remarks of how the organization delivers ethics programs, and participant
attitudes.
Expert Audits. Patton (2002) suggests that “…within a particular framework,
expert reviews can increase credibility for those who are unsure how to distinguish high-
quality work” (p. 562). He suggests that the role of the doctoral committee is to provide
expert reviews for graduate students. Expert audits were used in the dissertation process
and were conducted by the researcher’s major professor to review strategic points in the
102
process. The expert audit was on-going throughout the process based on expert
availability and during critical times in the process.
Bracketing. Schwandt (2001) alludes to ‘bracketing’ as the researcher setting
aside or suspending his/her personal assumptions in order to concentrate on the
phenomena being studied. The researcher in this study employed the use of a Personal
Disclosure Statement (Appendix C), which was written prior to the onset of the study.
The purpose of a personal disclosure statement was to clarify the assumptions and biases
the researcher held that were relevant to the study (Merriam, 1998). Scholars recommend
that the researcher refer back to the personal disclosure statement periodically in order to
continually be aware of personal beliefs and how they may influence “…what the
researcher hears, observes, and understands” (Ruona, 2005, p. 35).
As difficult as it may seem for researchers to keep their beliefs about the world,
values, and lived experiences from affecting their research, a written statement reflecting
personal bias and subjectivities reviewed throughout the study may counter the influences
of personal biases. Further, a personal disclosure (Ruona, 2005) or subjectivity audit
(Peshkin, 1993) acts as a filter or lenses through which the researcher understands the
study. Since value-free research is not likely (Patton, 2002), a real concern for qualitative
researchers striving for validity and reliability is the influence the researcher has on the
study.
External Validity
External validity is associated with the extent to which the findings of one study
are transferable to other settings is referred to as ‘reader generalizability’ (Merriam,
2000). Merriam (2000) suggests that the reader determines if the context is similar,
103
hence, determines if the findings are applicable. The researcher used thick and rich
descriptions of the setting and the findings in order to assist the readers themselves to
form their own conclusions about the transferability of this research.
Reliability
Schwandt (2001) defines ‘reliability’ as research that can replicated by another
inquirer and is concerned with whether findings can be replicated using the same
methods (Merriam, 1998). This can be accomplished by comparing data with similar
studies, relevant theoretical frameworks and the use of rigorous methods during
fieldwork (Patton, 2002). After the analysis took place, the data was compared with
several ethical frameworks that informed this study.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented an overview of the qualitative research design that was
used for this study. A basic interview study methodology was presented and was used to
study how employees learn ethics in the workplace.
An interview guide was the primary method of data collection. Memos were also
taken during and immediately after each interview to supplement the data, and notate any
questions that surfaced. The constant comparative analysis method was used to organize
and analyze the data. During the initial phases of analysis, the data themes were
generated and clustered into similar groups and further reduction of data took place. Data
was coded and entered in to a table. To manage the data efficiently, Ruona’s (2005) data
management protocol was used. Further, internal validity and reliability strategies were
also used in this study to promote trustworthiness, credibility, and rigor of this study.
104
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to understand how employees learn ethics in the
workplace. While the term ‘ethics’ is often defined from an individual, socio-cultural,
and contextual perspectives, the aim of this research was to understand how employees
learned ethics in the context of their work life. Further this study acknowledges that some
of the participants’ perceptions of ethics at work were equated with the morals and values
that are formed and internalized outside of the workplace and overlap into ethical
decision-making at work. Although this is an important aspect of how employees behave
and make decisions that are ethically based in an organization, the primary purpose was
to study how employees learned ethics at work. The research questions that guided this
study were:
1. What formal programs or activities do employees engage in to learn ethics?
2. What other ways do employees learn ethics in the workplace?
This study distinguishes between delivery systems or the delivery of content (i.e.
organizing, creating, capturing, and distributing the content) in an organizational setting
and how employees internalized and applied what they learned about ethics in the
workplace. Further, this study used Marsick and Watkins’ (1990) model which
contextualizes individual learning at work and defines learning based on how individuals
or groups acquire, interpret, reorganize, change or assimilate a related cluster of
information, skills, and feelings.
105
This chapter is organized into two sections. The first section describes the
demographics of the company and a brief profile for each participant in this study. The
second section reports the findings related to the two research questions and presents the
supporting data from the interviews.
The Company
The company that provided the context for this study is a subsidiary of a
Fortune 500 company and is located in metropolitan Atlanta. This company employs
approximately 1,800 employees and is the leading global provider of set-top boxes, end-
to- end video distribution networks and video systems integration. This high tech
company employs a highly educated, highly skilled, and computer-literate workforce and
was characterized by some of the participants in this study as “conservative”,
“engineering-centric company and people” and having “a strong work ethic.”
In 2007, 2008, and 2009, this company was named by Ethisphere Magazine as
one of the Top One-Hundred Most Ethical Companies in the World. Criteria used by
Ethisphere Magazine in the selection process of the companies that earned this distinction
were (1) innovation that contributes to public well-being, (2) corporate citizenship and
responsibility, (3) corporate governance, (4) internal systems and ethics/compliance
program, (5) industry leadership, (6) executive leadership and tone form the top, and (7)
legal regulatory and reputation track record (www.ethisphere.com/WME2008/).
The Participants
Eleven employees representing senior leaders, directors, managers and
development engineers participated in this study. In order to acquire rich descriptive data,
purposeful sampling was used to ensure the participants were knowledgeable about the
106
formal ethics programs and activities in the company. Each of the eight men and the three
women interviewed had worked at the company for a minimum of six years.
Participants were asked how they learned ethics while employed with the company.
Table 4.1 presents the demographic information of the participants. Pseudonyms were
used to protect the participants’ identity. The participants’ role, gender, ethnicity and
tenure with the company are also indicated in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Participant Demographics
Name Predeepe John Uma Kim Andy Tom
Role Director VP Manager Manager Director Director
Gender Male Male Female Female Male Male
Ethnicity Indian Caucasian Indian Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian
Tenure 10 yrs. 6 yrs. 10 yrs. 11 yrs. 6 yrs. 30 yrs.
Name Pete Sunglee Suna Henry Ben
Role Engineer Director Manager Manager Director
Gender Male Male Female Male Male
Ethnicity Austrailian Asian Indian Caucasian Caucasian
Tenure 8 yrs. 13 yrs. 13 yrs. 15 yrs. 14 yrs.
Predeepe
Predeepe is the Director of IT Technical Development and has worked for the
company for ten years. He is responsible for implementing the technical side of the
107
online training programs for compliance and ethics training, and the code of conduct,
referred to as the COBC. Several years ago, the company sent him to Harvard Business
School for management development training. He stated, “I found out that they must have
sent one or two employees besides me over the history of the company, so I was really
blessed ― very lucky.”
A small pleasant Indian man, Predeepe responded philosophically about how he
learned ethics in the workplace. He stated,
I think this opportunity that you are taking to study ethics is a very opportune time
at this time in society and it’s – because society today is not just an American
society or it is an Indian society or a Chinese society or a European society…it’s
a global environment today.
He also talked about how he and others learned ethics at work:
We go…we talk to our managers, we talk to the HR department and we follow the
company guidelines.
John
John is the Senior Vice President, Secretary General Counsel, Compliance and
Ethics Officer for the company, and serves as the company’s senior attorney. He is a
member of the General Council Roundtable. Among his many responsibilities, he ensures
that employee compliance and ethics training is implemented annually. John helps with
the design related to the content for the online compliance and ethics training and reports
to the company’s board of directors the participation results of the annual training.
John is Caucasian and has worked for the company for six years. He reflected on
his past experiences as having significant on-the-job training because of his involvement
108
in the resolution of ethical dilemmas at other companies he had been employed. John
described an ethical dilemma he was involved in with the federal government that was
well publicized on all the national television networks. He was the lead attorney at the
time for his company and stated that he learned so much from that particular case.
John was responsible for overseeing the integration of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act (2002) at the company and commented on the complexity of the integration
process. He stated,
I think we identified 804 control type issues that we had to address. Working
with the outside auditors, we worked through every one of those control issues
and I think that really had an impact [elevated awareness] in terms of
compliance.
He suggested that he learned ethics at work through the responsibilities of his
position, and outside sources of ethics information and government regulations that are
enforced.
Uma
Uma is an Indian woman and has worked at the company for 13 years. Her role in
the company is Manager of IT Applications and Development. She participates in the
company’s diversity out reach programs in the company. A soft-spoken person, she
related her personal beliefs about values, morals and ethics to her ethics in the workplace.
She stated,
It’s very difficult for me, as a person to separate my personal values or the values
that I have at home and then go into other situations and not have the same
values. It’s very hard for me to understand, how can you separate your values?
109
When asked how she specifically learned ethics in the workplace she
automatically suggested she learned ethics through the online ethics and compliance-
training program. Probing by the researcher uncovered how strongly she felt and relied
on the policies and procedures to guide her ethical behavior. She stated,
…regardless of whether you believe in the policies or not, there shouldn’t be any
negotiation. It should be just part of what you do.
Kim
Kim is Caucasian and the Manager of Contracts Administration and has worked
for the company for 11 years. Her job is to work with the legal department to ensure that
contracts are legally- based per the company’s compliance and ethics codes. She was
candid when she responded to the questions. She remarked about the work ethic in the
context of ethics in the workplace and said, “Generally speaking…you don’t last in this
company if you are not giving 120 or a 130 percent.” Kim affirmed she primarily
learned ethics through observation in the workplace and stated,
…if you are concerned about such things [about ethics] you certainly see
it in the workplace in the sense that you see those people who promote a sense of
integrity, etc. I think, generally hands-on-training, direct training, and the, just
the softer portions of just, relationships between colleagues and managers, etc.
Andy
Andy is Caucasian and has worked for the company for six years. He is presently
the Director of Finance, Financial Planning, and Analysis and the former compliance and
ethics officer for the company. He has been involved in the internal audit and compliance
for over twenty years. Andy described his responsibilities as an internal auditor, which
110
included ethics, crisis planning, and risk assessment. Andy believes that an ethical
organization is not achieved using one strategy. He stated, “I think you need to have a
mix of both online training and in-person sessions for balance…polices and procedures
are the bedrocks…”
Tom
Tom is Caucasian and is a Technical Director and holds a Ph.D. in Engineering.
He has worked for the company for 30 years. He was confident, deeply committed to his
work, and was proud that he was one of the first employees hired by the company thirty
years ago. Tom was realistic about the company and remarked, “…the company has had
their ups and downs with ethical dilemmas, but the leadership is a real support system in
demonstrating ethical standards.” Tom was a strong proponent of seeking advice from
HR and he talked about how he often will go to HR with an ethical issue and they advise
him on how to handle the situation.
Pete
Pete is Australian and is the Vice President of Applications Southwest
Engineering. He has worked for the company for eight years and holds a Ph.D. in
Engineering. Pete is responsible for quality-based projects that are part of the software
organization at the company. He works with teams developing quality initiatives and
improvement projects that are primarily software engineering in nature. He suggested that
ethics is related to quality assurance. He stated, “As I think about ethics from a quality
side, you have to be real aware when we’re dealing with issues and product quality.”
111
When asked about other ways he learns ethics at work in addition to online ethics and
compliance training, he alluded to “many ways” and thought it depended on the
“individual situation.”
Sunglee
Sunglee is the Director of Engineering, IP Set Top Development and holds a
Ph.D. in Engineering. He is Asian and was recruited by the company 13 years ago. His
job responsibilities include directing a group of engineers and a program management
team. He and his team manage product development and management of the partnerships
in Asia. Sunglee was difficult to understand at times due to his heavy Asian accent.
Sunglee joined the company because of its strong technical attributes. He stated,
I met a few very strong technical people from the company…I feel that it’s a
strong company and it would be good to join them to work together. I think that’s
the major driver for me to come and join the company.
Sunglee suggested that he and his colleagues learned ethics through experience. He
stated:
…training is one way, but from the daily business practice perspective we are
interacting with people all the time and people influence each other. Most of the
time it’s the senior manager leader that can best say what is a good thing to do
and what we should not do. So, in our daily business practice we do learn from
real events ….
Suna
Suna is the Manager of Software Test Engineering and has worked for the
company for ten years. She is responsible for a team of engineers from Atlanta and a
112
team from Chennai, India for ensuring quality testing of the software has been completed.
Suna believed that one example of ethics that related to her job dealt with complete
transparency in the communication of quality related issues.
An Indian woman, soft-spoken held similar beliefs as Suna regarding personal
ethics transferring from the home to work. She commented,
I think that it's very challenging to not bring your values to work. I think you are
who you are. There are some people who draw a fine line between how they are
at work versus how they behave at home, and in my mind, it's one and the same.
When she was asked about other ways she learned besides online training she responded,
“by watching and learning.”
Henry
Henry is Caucasian and the Director of Software Testing Engineer. He has
worked for the company for fifteen years. He is responsible for all the client architecture
which he described as the architecture that goes into the set top boxes across cable IP TV.
Henry defined the term architecture as referring to how the company’s product is
compatible with the customer’s environments and how the software platforms are built
that run on the set tips.
Henry spends most of his time with customers and oversees the goals and
objectives of this part of the business. He has no direct reports, yet is in a position of
influence and stated, “I end up directing the organization so people to do the right
thing.” He shared many ways he learns ethics. Henry found that the “stable environment
that promotes trust and honesty”, “leadership as role-models”, “seeking advice from
113
HR” and “colleagues whom he had long-term relationships” were various ways he
learned this at work.
Ben
Ben, Caucasian, is the Director of Engineering and has worked for the company
for fourteen years. He said he “grew up” in Research and Development
(R & D) and has done everything from managing the R & D organization to what he is
responsible for now, a higher level of coordinating multiple R & D groups and project
management for a business unit in the company. Coming from a military background, he
prided himself as being a loyal and committed member of the company. He stated, “…I
think of ethics in terms of right and there’s a wrong.” He suggested that there are
multiple ways he learned ethics that ranges from the online ethics and compliance
training to working in an ethical culture where the leadership models ethical behavior.
Overview of Findings
Two sets of findings emerged based on the two questions that guided this
study. These are overviewed in Table 4.2.
114
Table 4.2. How Participants Learned Ethics in the Workplace
The first set of findings was based on the participants’ perceptions on how they learned
ethics by engaging in formal ethics programs and activities at work. Two distinct
115
categories emerged from the data. The first category describes the formal compliance and
ethics programs, activities, and delivery systems (online training, large and small group
meetings). The second category describes the formal organizational systems instituted in
the workplace that helped participants learn ethics or sought out expert advice and/or
resolved ethical dilemmas.
The second set of findings, the participants described examples of how they
learned ethics at work other than through formal programs and activities. Examples are
taken from the data, which illustrate how the participants’ acquired, interpreted, and
assimilated what they had learned about ethics at work. Six categories emerged from the
data:
1. Participants observed artifacts in the work environment that reinforced ethics
2. Participants confided in a peer for advice;
3. Participants experienced ethical dilemmas in the workplace;
4. Participants observed ethical dilemmas at work;
5. Observed leaderships’ ethical behavior and ‘tone at the top’;
6. Participants were influenced by the company’s organizational culture.
Finding One: Formal Compliance and Ethic Programs and Activities
Formal ethics programs and activities, i.e. delivery systems, are defined as the
actions the company engages in to convey policies, procedures, and practices that
organizations adopt to help communicate the importance of ethics, provide resources to
employees, and handle related issues and problems (Ethics Resource Center, 2005;
NBES, 2005). The participants described four formal ways they learned ethics at work
which include (a) online compliance and ethics training, (b) large group meetings, (c)
116
small group meetings referred to as “sector specific”, and (d) organizational systems that
are available for employees with ethical concerns.
Table 4.3 provides an overview of the different ways the participants identified
they learned ethics in the workplace. “Formal Programs and activities refer to the
policies, procedures, and practices that organizations may adopt to help communicate the
importance of ethics, provide resources to employees, and handle related issues (NBES,
2005, p. 5).” Delivery systems refer to the way this knowledge is transferred.
Table 4.3. How Participants Learned Ethics in the Workplace
Online Compliance and Ethics Training
Online compliance and ethics training is the primary way that the participants said
they learned ethics in the workplace. This training is referred to as Video On Demand
117
(VODS). The VODS are updated annually and provides six hours of online training.
There are approximately fifteen different VODS that cover common issues that the legal
department, the Compliance and Ethics Officer, and the HR staff identified as potential
ethical concerns for the company. Some of these potential ethical concerns relate to
electronic communications, reporting ethical misconduct, signature policies related to
contracts, and harassment issues. Other subjects covered in the VODS are conflict of
interest, gifts and entertainment, and exports. Further, employees working in the areas of
federal procurement or foreign sales are required to review the supplemental codes of
ethics and guidelines on an annual basis. The compliance and ethics training videos are
comprised of five topics, which include the Federal Ethics Code and the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act.
Employee certification of the Code of Business Conduct (COBC) is required
annually for all employees. According to the Compliance and Ethics Officer
‘certification’ means that the employee understands the COBC and ethics policies and
procedures adopted by the company. The Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer requests that all employees review and understand the code of business conduct.
Employees are “strongly encouraged” to complete the COBC training within a
designated timeframe.
The participants described online compliance and ethics training as the primary
formal way they learned ethics in the workplace. Comments about the nature of online
ethics training varied amongst the participants in this study. For example, Tom, Kim, and
Ben suggested many things in the online compliance and ethics training were “common
sense.” John commented on the benchmarking study published by the General Council
118
Round Table regarding the effectiveness of employees learning compliance and ethics
online versus in-person training;
Here’s a [ethics] round table benchmarking analysis that indicated― while
companies do not necessarily perceive any difference in the effectiveness of online
training, they do report cost advantages to online compliance training. When I
read that, their benchmarking says that maybe there’s not much of a difference.
Uma felt online compliance and ethics training was effective and reinforced
ethical behavior expectations at work. She said,
It encourages you to make sure you understand what the questions are about,
what the company’s policies are and what ethics means to the company. In doing
that every year, the company is repeating and repeating its ethics and making
sure that it[ethics] is getting down to the employee level.
Again she underscores the nature of the reinforcement of ethics and “new” learning
online training provides. She stated, “…although we have been doing it for several years,
every year I learn something else or something else sticks out. It points out different
things that, in everyday work relationships that you don’t consider until someone points it
out.”
Tom, a Technical Director at the company and a tenured employee of thirty
years, perceived that the online compliance and ethics training “…is not a huge
contributor to the overall behavior of people at large.” He stated,
…it [ethics] is really largely common sense and, frankly, to a lot of people doing
this year after year, it becomes a bit of a game as to how quickly you can get
through the training rather than anything else.
119
He did confirm that online training is useful in learning ethics in some areas that have a
tendency to change, and in this case, the online compliance and ethics training provided a
good source for learning and staying current with the changes in ethics and compliance
policies and procedures.
Suna suggested online compliance and ethics training was procedural as far as
becoming familiarized with the legal side of the business, code of conduct, and ethics
regarding international business. Her concern was not the training itself, but the
enforcement of ethics behavior on a daily basis. She stated,
…100 percent of the workforce has completed the training, but how much of that
is actually because you really want to do it versus you’re being forced to do
it…are you really following that in your day to day life? Who’s policing that?
Nobody.
Yet, Suna believed that online ethics training helped her understand how to identify
unethical behavior and, further, taught her how to react to ethical issues. Pete, a software-
testing engineer who has worked for the company eight years, was pragmatic in his
response to online compliance and ethics training. He said “I actually like the online stuff
…you also know how to find more information and how to get it. Doing the training every
year… at least people can’t say they’re not aware of it.”
The other participants expressed similar perceptions regarding the importance of
online training and further suggested that this form of training serves as a constant
resource, which can be accessed when needed.
120
Large Group Meetings
Large group meetings held annually or as needed was another venue in which
compliance and ethics training was delivered to employees. Participants suggested that
the large group meetings are generally held off-site in a nearby arena. Large group
meetings are designed to reinforce the online compliance and ethics training. Employees
from the executive team (legal department, Compliance and Ethics Officer, HR staff)
communicate and reinforce the overall compliance and ethics policies and procedures.
Periodically, the President and CEO will make an appearance at these meetings to
reinforce the COBC and the ethics position of the company. In addition, there is an
opportunity in the large group meeting venue for employees to ask the ‘experts’ questions
during the meeting.
There was a general feeling among the participants that large group compliance
and ethics training meetings were not as effective as other ways they learned ethics, yet a
few participants suggested they learned more through the interaction with the group and
leaders. Henry described the large group compliance and ethics training was primarily an
extension of the online training, but “live”.
He said,
We then have a mandatory session that every employee has to be at that’s an in-
person one that we normally do at the local arena and everybody piles in there.
That’s typically a lot of the legal compliance ones where you’ve got to be there
and all of our legal team get up and walk through their presentations kind of
thing. And that’s a good two, three hours probably of material. It can be
challenging because it’s so much information, and you’re trying to focus and
121
remember this, that, and the other. It’s more that you heard it… hoping that it all
registered.
Suna described her perceptions on learning compliance and ethics in a large group
setting.
The subscriber [employee] goes off to the big arena down the road—so we just go
there and people present their topics and we just sit and listen. At the end, they
just circulate a piece of paper where you say you’ve attended the session, and that
counts towards one of the sessions you attended.
She added,
… ‘Live’ is probably better because you get more interaction…if you really want
to take something away and if you really want to ask questions and get direct
feedback. There is really no feedback, so to speak, on the online sessions.
Although Pete preferred the online compliance and ethics training versus large
group meetings, he did recognize that “…some people really get a lot out of the question
and answer sort of stuff.”
Andy perceived in-person training in large groups was just as important as online
compliance and ethics training in the employees’ learning process because employees are
exposed to the leadership team who facilitate the learning in the meeting. He stated, “Get
the people [leaders] up in front and have the leadership team do the training…I think
that is a great way to expose employees to the leadership tone at the top.”
Ben referred to the large group meetings as a mandatory follow-up to the online
compliance and ethics training. He commented that these meetings were…
122
more or less a formal training class on specific areas, whether it’s patents,
international business or whether it’s the general code of ethics, we do those on a
fairly regular basis…it comes basically down to understanding and …what you
can and can’t do…within the company itself, I think largely, as decisions are
made, you’ve got to evaluate them on a case to case basis...and be proud you can
step up and say, “Yeah, I’ve made that decision and it’s a worthwhile thing to
do…
Small Group Meetings
In addition, small group meetings, referred to as “sector specific” meetings, were
a way some participants learned compliance and ethics procedures that pertained to their
specific roles and responsibilities in the company. Participants suggested that small group
meetings provided a safe interactive environment to learn about specific compliance and
ethics policies and to discuss ethical issues or concerns in-depth.
Ben described the sector specific training as “…an onsite class, they call sector
specific, but it’s all part of the compliance training…” Predeepe referred to small group
meetings as a cohort group. He described a cohort meeting in IT he had been involved in
the day before the interview. He said, “It’s [small cohort meeting] led by the Vice
President and he has directors and managers in different parts of the organization who
form the cohort. We discussed ethics yesterday. Why is ethics important? Why is trust
important?”
Although participants did not give detailed examples of their discussions in the
sector specific small group meetings, these participants viewed these meetings to be
123
effective because compliance and ethics issues relevant to the group were discussed in-
depth.
Organizational Support Systems
Several support systems in the organization were available to the employees that
provided guidance for the resolution of ethical concerns or ethical dilemmas as needed.
Participants described the support systems available in the organization were (a) the
Compliance and Ethics Officer, (b) an employee ethics hotline used to report breaches of
ethics, and (c) HR professionals.
Compliance and Ethics Officer. In accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
(2002) which was implemented at the company several years ago, all public corporations
must designate an employee to serve as the Compliance and Ethics Officer. John, the
Compliance and Ethics Officer for the company, described his primary responsibility. He
stated “We have a corporate compliance committee…what this committee does is
basically oversees all of our ethics processes and procedures… I run the compliance
committee.” Further, John described the composition of the compliance committee. He
stated,
In the compliance committee we have senior executives from HR, from finance,
from accounting and from our three-business groups and sales organization. We
meet once a quarter as a minimum and then, if there is a particular issue that
needs to be addressed, we’ll convene the compliance committee.
Andy served on the compliance, internal audit, and governance committees. In
compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley (2002), he explained that the audit committee
“…specifically addresses issues regarding ethics and compliance…” and is responsible
124
for “debriefing the company’s board of directors on ethics issues and future action
plans.”
Ethics Hotline. In accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) all public
companies are required to implement a procedure whereby an employee can report
unethical behavior in the company and remain anonymous. This vehicle for reporting
ethical misconduct in the company is referred to as the ethics hotline. Through the online
compliance and ethics training, participants learned the protocol for accessing the ethics
hotline.
All the participants in this study referenced the ethics hotline and were cognizant
of the purpose of hotline and how to access it. Henry described how to access the hotline;
“You just go to the main internal employee web site that we’ve got and all the directions
are there for doing it. But it’s not something I’ve had to personally go chase down.”
Uma explained her knowledge regarding the ethics hotline “…we also have a hotline for
anyone who has an incident or a concern, they can call this hotline, and it could be
anonymous, or you could tell them who you are if you want. But they can report it and
they can also talk with someone― one-on-one if need be.”
Kim alluded to the ethics hotline and the company’s conservative characteristic;
“That’s probably one reason you aren’t getting a lot of [ethics complaints] although, I
don’t have the hotline at my desk so who knows what goes on behind the scenes.” Andy
commented about the hotline with regard to fear of reporting unethical behavior. He said,
“…if somebody’s trying to push you in a way that you don’t think is ethical, I think you
have the ability to raise your hand or call the hotline or say, hey, this isn’t right without
fear of reprisal.” Although all the participants commented that they had awareness of the
125
hotline and when to use it, only one participant commented that she knew employees at
the company that used the hotline other than the Compince and Ethics Officer and the
Chief financial Officer. Ben suggested that he was well aware as a result of ethics
training of the company’s “… various hotlines and escalation procedures” in place to
help support the employee with ethical issues. John said that they investigate all calls to
the ethics hotline and stated, “…we get about a dozen calls a year, if that.”
HR Professionals. According to many of the participants in this study, HR at the
company has a strong presence with regard to ethics in the organization. HR was
mentioned twenty-two times in the context of employees seeking support, reporting
issues, or receiving training, information, or coaching.
Pete, (originally from Australia which accounts for all the questions ending with
a question mark) stated,
This company has had, since I’ve been here a strong HR presence, I guess you
could say, right? We all know who they are, right? And they actually do the
training a lot of the times too, so if you have questions and things, it’s pretty easy
to pick up the phone and ask them, right?
He compared the other HR departments at the other companies he had worked for with
his present company. He said “I’m just thinking about other companies I worked at
where you had to stop and think of whom the HR rep that we would escalate problems to,
and that kind.”
With regard to online ethics training follow-up, Sunglee said, “I got notified by
our admin in HR who [employee] has not done online training. Some of them [HR] teach
some of the principles so they [employees] are aware or refreshed on an annual basis.”
126
Further, Sunglee comments on receiving gifts from vendors. He said, “We report this
[entertainment or gifts] to the chain of command and HR.”
Andy talked about HR as a resource for ethics advice or counseling that
employees could go to discuss ethical concerns. He stated,
I think how we directed people is to their HR person, their HR manager, or…if
you didn’t feel that you got an adequate [from the employee’s manager] answer
you’d go to HR, and …you would go to compliance officer and than you’d go to
the general counsel
Suna said, “Sometimes I just go to HR.” Henry said because of “…relationships
over the years, I look for advice in HR for example.” Predeepe said,
…we talk to our managers, we talk to HR department and we follow company
guidelines…I know – if there is an ethical issue in the company, there is a whole
legal organization that will probe the ethical issue and is very fair on both sides.
He mentioned that the legal department was “approachable” and that if he did not feel
comfortable talking with his boss there were multiple things he could do including
discussing issues with legal. Predeepe stated, “He’s [VP of Legal] definitely someone you
could trust to go have conversations with.”
Uma commented on an ethical dilemma she experienced with a peer. She said,
“I could have run to this person and scolded this person or reported formally to HR.”
Henry stated,
There are people that I would go to, which are a different way of answering your
question. Because if it’s a well- known set policy that this is where you go, then
sure, your manager – unless it involves your managers. And then historically
127
there was the Compliance Officer kind of thing. So, I’m sure if I look online there
is the equivalent statement for within the company/ organization now, but there
are particular managers, for example, and executives here that I would go to kind
of thing to get information and get some coaching from as well.
Henry commented that he goes to HR for advice when he needs clarification on ethics
issues and policy.
The evidence shows that the participants’ were aware of the different systems
and protocols they could access for help with ethical issues or concerns. Some
participants commented that the annual compliance and ethics training acted as a constant
reinforcement of ethics in the company. Sunglee stated, “This kind of example shows that
this kind of training is effective and people remember.” Andy summarized his thoughts
on the mandatory compliance and ethics online training as being one component of a
well-rounded and effective compliance and ethics program. He stated,
You can put the basics in place and you should have the basics in place, but that
won’t necessarily get you all the way there. But I think having the policies
and procedures that are frequently updated that are assessable, I think that’s
kind of one of the bedrocks. I think having a training program around the
policies and procedures is important. I think also having compliance
programs that is also about training not just policies and procedures, but more
about behavior and what’s acceptable and not acceptable.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the pool of support systems that participants stated that
reinforced and/or helped them to learn ethics.
128
Mentoring Senior Leaders
Company
Human Resources Ethics Support Compliance Officer
Employees
Leadership Hot Line
Figure 4.1. Pool of Support Systems
Finding Two: Other Ways Participants Learned Ethics
Participants were asked what other ways in addition to formal programs and
activities they perceived they learned ethics in the workplace. Six themes emerged which
included (1) ethics artifacts in the work environment, (2) the participants confided in their
peer group about ethics concerns, (3) the participants experienced an ethical dilemma or
knew of someone who experienced an ethical issue at work, (4) the participants observed
peer group ethical behavior, (5) the participants observed the leaderships’ behavior and
‘tone at the top’, and (6) the participants’ behavior was influenced by the company’s
organizational culture. These are reviewed in Table 4.4.
129
Table 4.4. How Participants Learned Ethics in the Workplace
Ethics Artifacts in the Work Environment
Participants indicated that one way the company reinforced what they learned
about ethics regarding specific systems was through the signage that appeared on the
walls in the work environment. Many of the participants commented on having observed
signage that discussed the ethics hotline procedures, quality, and values in the
organization.
John commented on how the company reinforced what employees learned about
ethics. He said,
Ethics is very high on the CEO’s priority list… [John points to his employee
badge]. Here are our ’08 initiatives, and these are sort of the key initiatives in
terms for the fiscal year… here’s the company mission, and then here’s our
culture…open communications, trust, fairness, integrity, right there.
130
Pete commented on the signage that he had seen that reinforced what he had learned
about ethics. He said, “…all the facilities have got some sort of break station and then
there typically are some paper posted in there that are describing the ethical issues, or
describing a whole bunch of things, ethical issues come up…they post these pretty much
every place.”
Henry commented, “…certain conference rooms you’d have little things on the
wall as well…the things ‘potted’ around that you come into contact with to refine it
[ethics] a little bit.” He also commented on the employee reviews. Henry stated, …one
other thing [ethics] is in our reviews, you’ve probably got six or seven different
categories hiding in there on a review for during the year...it actually forces managers to
actually think about it [ethics] during the review process as well...if there were any
[employee] behaviors that needed to be corrected― that’s where they would get caught.
Suna commented that she learned ethics or was reminded of what she had learned
and said, “…periodic e-mail announcement and in the break room where they have the
vending machines…there are things posted on ethics on the bulletin boards. It’s quite
prolific.” Uma commented, “We do have a set of codes, but we do not have a book
anymore. Everything is online.” Further she talked about the importance of reinforcing
ethics in the work environment and stated, “…the important thing, I think consistency
and just making sure that it [ethics] is repeated.
Peer Relationships
Some of the participants in this study described situations where they confided in
a peer about an ethical concern. ‘Peer group’, referenced in this study, is comprised of
senior leaders, directors, managers, or a “well-respected friend” in the organization.
131
According to the participants who confided in their peers, this interaction with their peers
about ethics, whether it was an ethical issue with each or another employee, most of these
informal conversations resulted in resolving the issue and prevented the situation to be
taken to the next level. Further, some of the participants alluded to the tenure of
employees in the company and its [tenure] affects on promoting ethical relationships and
a strong ethical environment.
Some of the participants employed at the company for several years or more
emphasized that they learned ethics more informally as a result of the establishment of
relationships with respected peers. Tom said “…comes down to peers working with each
other and having close working relationships so you will know if somebody’s doing
something that’s not thought of as very good behavior.” He believed that his tenure with
the company has contributed to his present knowledge and understanding of ethical
behavior expectations.
Henry commented on the relationship between ethics and tenure in the company.
He stated,
We’re very fortunate to have as a general statement, employees, long tenured
who, if you ask most of them, they work here because of the other people who
work here. And so because of that, there is a kind of very strong
relationships…it’s very much a loyalty culture…and attached to the loyalty piece
is the expectation on the ethics as well.
For example, Ben said,
Though, I would say the large majority of [ethical] cases or issues like this get
worked out on an individual to manager or peer-to-peer type basis where, hey,
132
this isn’t proper behavior…you can’t do this. It never has to go into the more
formal procedures.
Uma had an ethical issue arise related to an informal gathering of work
colleagues after work hours at a nearby eatery. Two colleagues, who were married to
different people, were flirting with each other. Their behavior carried on into the
workplace and became very uncomfortable for some of their colleagues. Uma, as the
manager, sought advice from a respected peer regarding what her ethical responsibility
was in this situation. After her conversation with the peer she came away with a sense of
how she should approach the situation from an ethical responsibility perspective.
Other participants expressed various situations when they confided in a
respected peer for advice regarding an ethical situation or dilemma. Most of the
participants suggested that confiding in a peer helped prevent taking the ethical issue to
the next level of management.
Experience at Work
The participants in this study also described situations or incidents in which the
participant learned about ethics by being involved in an ethical dilemma, or had observed
an ethical dilemma in the workplace unfolding. Suna said,
A lot of what we go through in our day-to-day lives is something you learn on the
job…you can’t find that information. It’s not comprehensive enough that it
teaches you exact scenarios, how you would react in a certain situation…a lot of
it [learning ethics] I would say is by watching and learning.
Sunglee described a situation where he had to draw on what he learned in the
workplace about ethics. The situation was a case that involved an employee “cheating the
133
company” by doing unrelated work during company hours and did not accomplish the
work needed for the company. He approached legal council and HR for advice on how to
handle the situation. Sunglee lamented that he was fair to the employee, gave him
warnings, moved him into a job where he had little responsibility, and eventually had to
let the employee go. Sunglee talked about fairness, working hard, and employee
responsibility to the company as part of an employee’s ethical responsibility at work.
Suna talked in general about getting product out when promised;“…the higher
up you go the more balancing act you have to do…what’s good for the business versus
…is it really ethical or not.” Further, Suna said, “… its [ethics training] not
comprehensive enough that it teaches…how you would react in a certain situation, for
example working in the area of international business…”
Kim experienced a situation where she used what she learned about ethics in a
contract negotiation. The third party gave her a “wink-wink” suggesting what was being
discussed would be their secret. Kim immediately said, “No, we don’t …I’m not going
forward with this…No, that’s not how we do business here.” Kim expressed that her
decision was based on her ethical judgment, which she knew would be supported by the
company.
Peter experienced ethics issues from a quality standpoint. He said,
…from a quality standpoint, often we are in a position to where we have to
identify defects in products, and things like that. Quality folks have to stand up
and say, picture this, hey, there’s a problem here, it’s going to cause…that
borders on ethical issues.
134
Observation of Peer and Group Behavior at Work
Predeepe emphasized his thoughts on observing unethical behavior of other
employees in the workplace. He said,
…at some point in the food chain or in that tree, somebody decides that they can
be unethical because of whatever gains or the position that they may have that
allows them to get that gain, everybody sees it. It is only people trying to fool
themselves that they think other people don’t see it and everything catches up with
you over a period of time.
Tom observed that…
People deal with each other very straightforwardly and I think that’s very
important. I guess it’s really tradition. You know, you start out with people that
are really centered on that, centered on making good products and making good
business deals, not tolerating those that don’t, and the organization grows in that
manner, I think. It’s always happed that way here. Occasionally, there’s been a
bad apple here and there, but they don’t last very long.
Suna expressed that she learned ethics many ways in the workplace, which
included “hands-on-training.” She stated,
Formal training is one way, and then, certainly your managers and from your
colleagues around you. I would say another key factor is what you bring to the
table when you come to work everyday. If you are concerned about such things,
you certainly see it in your workplace in the sense that you see those people who
promote a sense of integrity. I think, generally, it’s hands-on training, direct
135
training, and then, just the softer portions of relationships between colleagues
and managers.
Leadership and “Tone at the Top”
Many of the participants used the phrase “tone at the top” to describe
leaderships’ commitment to ethics at the company. Some of the participants referred to
the “trickle-down effect” which suggests that the leaders’ commitment to ethics is
reaching the entire organization by the leaders being visible in the company and
providing the resources needed to promote ethics.
Predeepe stated, “If I look at ethics in the organization, it will start with the
ethical standard and will always start some place at the top and it will have a waterfall
effect.” He explained, “…if you have a person at the top that’s very ethical, then you
significantly increased the chances of building a top down ethical organization.”
Suna stated, “I think if you don’t have buy-in from up at the top it doesn’t matter
what protocols are set down here. I guarantee it will get overridden. She gave an
example of what could happen if leadership did not support ethical behavior in the
company. She said,
If I am sending some message to my team and it so happens that a senior leader is
out there with my team member and I’m not there to intercept it. Since this person
is in a higher authority than me, the obvious choice is to do what this person is
telling him to do.
Suna explained, “All this drives from the top. If you are not setting the right example and
they’re not sending the right message, then it doesn’t matter what the employees does or
feels.”
136
Uma talked about ethics being “… not only from the top down, but from the
bottom-up.” She stated, “Sometimes, a CEO can learn something from someone at the
bottom… I think it is very important coming from the top down and bottom-up.”
Ben talked about management intervention in situations when unethical
behavior occurs. He said, “That requires excellent ethics from the top down and we’ve
been very fortunate, I think, in having very, very good people… leadership in the
company.” Kim made a similar comment about leadership and said, “I know that from
the CEO on down, ethics and environmental issues are key items for a lot of people.”
Tom commented,
We’re required to read the code of conduct and things like that, but I really think
it come down to the people and the heritage of the leadership in the company is
and what they do and how they present themselves. It works its way down the
ladder to the point where one manager will not tolerate behavior from his
subordinates in a non-ethical way or a non-productive way and it really becomes
institutionalized in the whole culture of the organization rather than something
that you really learn through these kinds of training programs.
Influence of the Ethical Organizational Culture on Participants
The participants’ perceived that they learned ethics by being part of an ethical
organizational culture. Some of the participants used words and phrases to describe the
organizational culture which included “transparent and transparency”, “honest and
open communication”, “trust”, “respect” and “work ethic.” Some of the examples
described by the participants crossover into the other ways they learned ethics, but the
137
comments made by the participants largely represented key components of an ethical
organizational culture.
Uma lamented about ethics and the organizational culture. She said,
You have to make it a part of the culture. It just has to be like free water…and you
do that by the consistency, the communication, just getting everybody on board.
And the only way to do that is just to keep repeating yourself and keeping asking
for input.
Predeepe praised the ethical organizational culture of the company. He stated,
“Morally, I am in a company that promotes ethics, promotes community service, honors
it, and celebrates it. It means the world to me to be in a company that is so highly
regarded.” Andy alluded to the ethical culture indirectly by noting that the training
scenarios online need to be as real as possible and stated, “…so they’re just not following
the letter of the policy versus maybe trying to follow the spirit of it.”
Ben commented on the ethical organizational culture at the company. He said,
I think that’s (ethical culture) very important and your behavior is largely shaped
by your what your peers and folks, people that you work with do. Somebody is
going to step up and raise a red flag if somebody’s doing something that’s in a
gray area.
Henry talked about honesty, trust and respect in the organization. He said, “…I
think it is a very strong culture of honesty. People are very straight in their dealings with
each other.” One example of the organization promoting honesty, trust, and respect in the
workplace is reflected in a procedure that allows employees to decline signing-off on the
online training certification. Although the company’s annual goal is 100% employee
138
compliance; in the event an employee is unable to or refuses to sign-off on the
certification process, the company employs a system that allows for the employee to
review the COBC with an HR professional.
This procedure allows the employee to submit his/her concern about signing-off
on the certification aspect of the training. Once the employee’s concern is filed, the
employee meets with the HR professional to ensure that the employee learned the
compliance and ethics material and understood the resources available to employees. The
refusal to sign-off in the certification process is documented in the employee’s file and
HR professional confirms in writing that the employee understood the compliance and
ethics training. According to the Compliance and Ethics Officer at the company, this
situation seldom occurs, but when it does, the company respects the employee’s right to
make the decision regarding certification
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the findings of a study that was conducted to understand
how employees learn ethics in the workplace. The findings centered on eleven
participants responses to the primary foci of this study: (1) what formal programs and
activities do employees engage in to learn ethics in the workplace and (2) what other
ways do employees learn ethics on the workplace.
The set of themes related to formal programs and activities employees engaged in
to learn ethics. The data that emerged found that the participants learned ethics through
the following delivery systems: (a) online compliance and ethics training, (b) large group
meetings, (c) small group meetings, and (d) organizational systems.
139
The second set of themes pertained to other ways participants said they learned
ethics. They included:
a. Artifacts in the environment that reinforced ethics in the workplace
b. Peer Relationships
c. Observed the leaders of the company
d. Observed peers in the workplace
e. Leaderships’ ‘tone at the top’
f. Influenced by organizational culture
The implications of these findings will be discussed in Chapter Five.
140
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This study used a qualitative approach to explore how employees learn ethics in
an organization. While the term ‘ethics’ is associated with individual perceptions and
social constructs, the aim of this research was to understand more deeply how employees
learned ethics in their work environment. It is acknowledged that some of the
participants’ perceptions of ethics at work were equated with their morals, ethics, and
values that are formed outside of the workplace and overlap into their decision-making at
work. Although this is an important aspect of how employees behave and make decisions
at work that are morally and ethically-bound, the primary purpose of this study was to
explore how employees learned ethics at work. The purpose was addressed by the
following research questions:
1. What formal programs or activities do employees engage in to learn ethics
in the workplace?
2. What other ways do employees learn ethics in the workplace?
This chapter presents a summary of the study, a discussion of the conclusions drawn from
the data analysis, implications for research and practice, and recommendations for future
research.
Summary of the Study
A basic interpretive qualitative design was used to understand how employees
learn ethics in the workplace. An interview guide format was utilized to ensure that the
141
researcher was consistent in asking the same questions to all the participants, yet it
allowed the flexibility to probe deeper into the participants’ responses. Purposeful
sampling was employed in the selection process of eleven employees [three females and
eight males] who held senior leadership, directorships, and managerial positions within
the company. All participants were employed by the company for a minimum of six years
and a maximum of thirty years. The company, located in metropolitan Atlanta, has been
honored three consecutive years, 2007-2009, as one of the top ethical companies in the
world by Ethisphere Magazine. All interviews were conducted by the researcher and
transcribed by a professional transcriptionist within a three-week period. Grounded in the
constant comparative analysis method, Ruona’s (2005) four-stage model for data analysis
provided the method to facilitate the preparation of data, familiarization, coding, and the
making meaning from the data.
Four categories emerged from the data that address the research questions: (a)
formal ethics and compliance programs and activities, (b) other ways employees learn
ethics (c) organizational systems that support, promote, and reinforce ethics in the
workplace, and (d) the influence of organizational culture. First, formal ethics and
compliances activities relate to how the company orients their employees, and conveys
and delivers the company policies, procedures, and behavioral expectations of the
organization. The second category, other ways employees learn ethics in the workplace
uncovered multiple forms of learning beyond what is considered “formal”, including (a)
self-directed learning, (b) informal and incidental learning, (c) experiential learning, and
(d) reflective practice. Category three reported evidence that the company had strong
organizational systems that support, promote, and reinforce ethics in the workplace. They
142
have clearly architected support systems, policies, and protocols, which were vital in the
continual learning of employees. These included protocols for reporting unethical
behavior, ensuring employees are trained in helping employees learn ethics and
compliance and helping to resolve ethical issues such as HRD or the Ethics and
Compliance Committee, and having annual update and implementation of ethics and
compliance training. Fourth, the influence of organizational culture associated with
visible ethical leadership, supportive peer network, artifacts in the work environment,
traits of the organization, and tenure of employees.
Conclusions and Discussion
Three conclusions emerged from this study:
1. Informal and incidental, and experiential learning and self-directed learning are
the primary modes of learning ethics at work.
2. Organizational systems are vital in supporting and solidifying learning ethics,
especially as learning becomes increasingly self-directed.
3. An organizational culture that actively promotes ethics clearly fosters continued
and enhanced learning around ethics.
This study sought to understand, what, if any, issues were key around learning
ethics versus learning other things in the workplace. The findings revealed that there were
actually not major differences in the ways employees learned ethics. Rather, for the most
part, the findings affirmed both the literature in adult education and HRD that has already
provided evidence that learning in an organization requires a range of different
experiences and that the most powerful learning happens outside of a formal program or
143
setting. Additionally, too, this study reinforces the importance of organizational supports
and culture to foster transfer of learning.
Additionally, it is hoped that a contribution of this study is to build a bridge
between ethics and the adult learning literature.
The first section of this chapter will discuss each of the three conclusions in
relationship to the findings of the study and as related back to the literature. The second
section will present the implications for practice, and the final section will discuss
implications for research followed by a summery of this chapter.
Conclusion 1: Informal and incidental, experiential learning and self-directed learning
are the primary modes of learning ethics at work
Although participants perceived mandatory online ethics and compliance training
as the predominant way they learned ethics in the workplace, the findings from this study
suggest otherwise. The findings actually suggest that the online formal program provided
simply the baseline or foundation for more learning that occurred after the formal
learning “event”. Participants became self-directed and much more active in their
learning when there was a need or a ‘trigger’ in the work environment that required
additional clarification of the application of ethics. Then the individual determined how
they would acquire and best learn that additional knowledge and informal and incidental,
experiential learning, and self-directed learning became the primary modes of learning.
The online modules that had been utilized for mandated training became a critical
resource for the participants during these times. Furthermore, the findings evidence many
examples of how these participants demonstrated self-directedness via mentoring,
relationships with peers and trusted and respected senior leaders, and HRD.
144
All the participants indicated that online ethics and compliance training was the
primary ‘formal’ way that they learned ethics in the company. This is not that surprising,
though, since the company mandates annual training via the online modules, and
rigorously oversees the process to ensure extremely high levels of compliance. So, when
one looks at the findings more closely and in light of the mandated requirement, the
findings actually suggest that the on-line formal program simply provided a baseline or
foundation for more and more meaningful learning that occurred after the completion of
the on-line modules. This is aligned with what we would expect to see in formal ethics
programs. According to the ERC (2005), formal ethics programs are a compilation of
policies, procedures, and practices that organizations may adopt to help communicate the
importance of ethics, provide resources to employees, and provide assistance for related
ethics issues.
Participant perspectives about online ethics training were varied and included
comments such as “[online training] was largely common sense”, “…every year, the
company is repeating and repeating ethics and making sure that it [ethics] is getting
down to the employee level”, “…is not a huge contributor to the overall behavior of
people at large” and “…it [online ethics training] points out different things that, in
everyday work relationships that you don’t consider until some one points it out”.
Tom suggested that online training is useful in learning ethics in some areas that have a
tendency to change. In this case, online ethics training becomes more of a review of the
ethics and compliance policies and procedures.
Formal ethics programs are necessary in organizations and have been a traditional
way of training and developing employees to facilitate change in the workforce that
145
require new skills and knowledge (Casey, 2005; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner,
2007). Studies suggest that formal ethics and compliance programs are rising in
organizations, yet expectations of the success of formal programs have stayed the same or
have declined in effectiveness (ERC/NBES® 2007).
The second part of conclusion one is critical in understanding how employees
learn ethics in the workplace. The findings reflect that the participants became self-
directed and more active in their learning when there was a trigger in the work
environment that required more knowledge or clarifications of ethics for application in a
specific situation. Marsick and Watkins (2001) maintain that informal learning “happens
when people face challenges, problems, and/or unanticipated needs” (p. 4).
Evidence shows that participants engaged in both informal and incidental learning
as well as experiential learning by being self-directed in seeking out answers for ethical
questions or resolutions for ethical challenges. Participants relied on peer relationships,
mentoring, and HRD professionals for advice to help crystallize their understanding of
ethics in particular situations. According to the participants who confided in their peers
about ethics, it was suggested that regardless of the ethics issue, most of these informal
conversations resulted in resolution of the problem or prevented the situation to be taken
to the next level.
Tom said,
…it comes down to peers working with each other and having close
working relationships so you know if somebody’s doing something that’s
not thought of as good behavior.
146
Ben stated,
Though I would say that the large majority of [ethical] cases or issues like
this get worked out on an individual to manager or peer to peer type basis
where, hey this isn’t proper behavior…you can’t do this. It never has to go
into the more formal procedures.
Further, Uma described a situation she experienced that not only made her
uncomfortable, but her peers in the department as well. Uma, as a manager, sought advice
from a respected peer regarding what her ethical responsibility was in this situation. After
her conversation with her peer, Uma came away with a sense of how she should approach
the situation from an ethical responsibility.
The literature suggests that 75% of the workforce learning that transpires in
organizations is informal (Cseh, Marsick, Wilson, and Volpe, 1999). The process of
informal learning is not linear or sequential and includes activities that are “intentional
but not highly structured” (Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 25) and takes place during the
individual’s daily activities. They associate informal learning experiences with self-
directed learning, coaching, and mentoring.
Another aspect of this conclusion is that the participants learned ethics through
their experiences at work. As in the case of Uma, who learned ethics through her
experience, participants learned ethics by being involved in an ethical dilemma or by
observing an ethical dilemma in the workplace unfold. The literature suggests that
experiential learning is multidimensional and engages the learner physically, mentally,
and emotionally (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). The process is highly
individualized to the extent that the learner has experiences, reflects upon each
147
experience, and develops knowledge each time (Fenwick, 2003) and that circumstances
control experiential learning (Doornbos et al, 2004).
Suna, Kim, and Sunglee described some of their experiences where they learned
ethics by being part of the experience. Suna suggested,
A lot of what we go through in our day-to-day lives is something you learn
on the job…you can’t find that information. It’s not comprehensive
enough that it teaches you exact scenarios, how you would react in a
certain situation…a lot of it [ethics training] I would say is by watching
and learning.
Kim described an experience where she transferred her knowledge of ethics to the
situation via a third party contract negotiation. She stated the party gave her a “wink-
wink,” suggesting that what was being discussed would be their secret. Kim immediately
said to him, “No, we don’t…I’m not going forward with this…no, that’s not how we do
business here.”
Sunglee transferred his knowledge of ethics when dealing with an experience that
involved an “employee cheating the company”. Fenwick (2000) suggests that part of
experiential learning is simply reflection, which is described as individualized learning
where the individual reflects on each experience and develops new knowledge each time.
The third part of this conclusion is that the on-line modules became a critical
resource for these times. First, it is not surprising that online training was the
predominant mode this company used to deliver ethics and compliance training to their
employees. Benson, Johnson, and Kuchinke (2004) maintain that the convergence of the
information age and the technology revolution has changed the nature of how employees
148
learn at work and suggest, “The availability of Internet access on the desks of many
workplace employees literally has brought a world of informal learning to the fingertips
of many employees” (p. 397).
Online training has become a tool for companies to ensure the employees are
receiving all, and the same information, in a timely manner. This study found that this
company, like most, use online training as the delivery system to efficiently and cost
effectively disseminate company information about ethics and compliance to all
employees (General Council Round Table, 2009).
What was surprising is that participants continued to use these online modules as
a key resource once the initial training had been completed—hence, the formal ethics
training fostered self-directed learning in employees and the workplace. Spear (1991)
maintains the individual can facilitate self-directed learning by recognizing opportunities
in the environment to learn from past and present knowledge and unexpected
occurrences. Organizations that provide a system for employees to pull information and
knowledge into the workplace at the exact time they need it helps employees potentially
gain control of their own learning (Marsick & Volpe, 1999).
Conclusion 2: Organizational systems are vital in supporting and solidifying learning
ethics, especially as learning becomes increasingly more self-directed.
Bunch (2007) suggests that “…training employees does not take place in a
vacuum and even when all the conditions seem perfect, positive change requires
organizational support” (p. 146). The findings of this study reflect that this organization’s
systems were accessible and very important to participants to help them “learn through”
their ethical challenges and/or help resolve ethical dilemmas. These organizational
149
systems employed many of the same components that are described in the various ethics
frameworks in the literature (Sims, 2003). These systems included broad oversight of the
ethics policies and procedures of the organization, a full-time Ethics and Compliance
Officer, a hotline for employees to anonymously report unethical behavior, and ethics
training (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006; ERC, 2007; Sims, 2003).
These systems were in place and all the participants were aware of them. In
particular, participants were well aware of the ethics hotline to report unethical behavior
and remain anonymous, yet all the participants except for the Ethics and Compliance
Officer, made it clear that they never had to use it and were not aware of how many times
it was used. John, the Ethics and Compliance Officer confirmed that they do have reports
of unethical behavior via the hotline “… maybe a dozen time a year.”
It was also apparent that HR/HRD played a significant role at this company as a
source of information and advice for employees regarding ethics and compliance
questions or challenges. Participants that sought out advice from HRD or the Ethics and
Compliance Officer suggested that this solidified and deepened their understanding of
ethics in the organization. Henry stated,
… because of relationships over the years, I look for advice in HR for
example.
Predeepe commented,
…we talk to our managers, we talk to the HR department and we follow
company guidelines. I know if there is an ethical issue in the company,
there is a whole legal organization that will probe the ethical issue and is
very fair on both sides.
150
These findings are consistent with the literature that suggests that HR and HRD
professionals play a pivotal role in ethics initiatives (Hatcher, 2002; Trevino 2007) and
are becoming more involved in the administration and implementation of ethics
initiatives (SHRM/ERC, 2003; Trevino, 2007). Based on survey results, SHRM and the
ERC (2003) maintain that 67% of HR professionals either agreed or strongly agreed that
the human resources department is the primary ethics resource for their organization. The
Ethics Resource Center maintains:
Although typically an ethics officer is responsible for developing an
organization’s ethics policies, creating communication related to the
organization’s code, planning ethics training programs, and overseeing the
ethics reporting function, the most effective officers know that it is critical
to operate as part of a team that brings together many different partners:
finance, audit, operations, and especially human resources. (p. 1)
Similar to the literature, John described the composition of the ethics and compliance
committee:
In the compliance committee we have senior executives from HR, from
finance, from accounting and from our three business groups and sales
organization. We meet once a quarter as a minimum and then, if there is a
particular issue that needs to be addressed, we’ll convene the compliance
committee.
Further, HR systems were acknowledged as being a system that supports ethics
and compliance. A surprising finding was that many of the participants could not
remember if ethics was intentionally integrated their orientation when they joined the
151
company, but assumed based on the high priority for ethics in the organization, that ethics
is instilled into all HR/HRD systems and procedures such as new employee orientation
and socialization, succession planning, and job performance as it is in ethics training
(Tichy, Frombrun, and Devanna, 1984; Van Zant, 2005). The tenure of the employees
seemed to play a role in their vague response to this finding, but at the same time inferred
that the ethical culture in the organization supported ethical behavior throughout the
organizational systems.
Conclusion 3: An organizational culture that actively promotes ethics clearly fosters
continued and enhanced learning around ethics.
The findings point to the organizational culture at this company promoted ethics
on a daily basis. The participants clearly learned ethics through social and cultural
influences, role modeling by and of senior leaders, their teams and managers, and via
conversations with peers regarding ethical dilemmas and resolution strategies.
Clearly many of the formal mechanisms described previously in this chapter were
key in encouraging an ethical culture at this organization. The formal training was widely
mandated and clearly impressed upon employees the importance of ethics at the
company. Also, on-going communication about ethics was continuously integrated into
the workplace. For example, formal large group meetings were employed as a follow-up
to online ethics and compliance training, and small group meetings [sector specific] were
convened and tailored to the individual departments needs related to the prevention and
the resolution of ethical issues. In addition, participants learned ethics via artifacts such
as posters and newsletters which were posted throughout the workplace in the cafeterias,
152
work room, etc. These things encouraged and reinforced themes and resources related to
ethics and quality, and also ensured the ethics hotline information was always accessible.
More than these formal mechanisms, which Schein (1992) would refer to as the
artifacts of organizational culture, there was clearly something more deep and abiding
that revealed this organization’s culture and clearly influenced how these participants
chose to learn and live ethics. The organizational traits of this company were identified
by some of the participants as being conservative and they believed the inherent traits of
the organization promoted and supported exemplary work ethic, trust, respect,
transparency, and honest communication. These were clearly significant in the process of
learning ethics in the work environment and in supporting the participants. Verschoor
(2004) suggests organizational traits such as openness and humility, an environment that
is accountable and emphasizes personal responsibility, a fierce commitment for doing it
right and not falling into the pattern of taking short cuts, and collaboration are some of
the traits that support an ethical environment and culture.
This really is important because while structured ethics training, policies and
procedure, and compliance and regulations are valuable in promoting and sustaining
ethics in the workplace, Thomas (2008) warns that compliance driven initiatives can
ultimately undermine an ethical culture. Scholars define organizational culture by what is
shared by a group, such as assumptions, values, norms, and artifacts, which help create
shared meanings amongst members of an organization regarding work life, expectations,
and relationships (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Meyerson & Martin, 1987). A culture that
nurtures ethics is important in order for a particular group or an organization to be ethical.
Williams and DeWitt (2005) suggest that organizational cultures can predispose
153
organizational members to make right or wrong decisions or cause ethical climates to be
highly principled or unethical. Most ethical frameworks used for the institutionalization
of ethics reflect the importance of organizational culture in sustaining ethics in the
workplace, and many scholars concur that instilling ethics in an organization is a process
that garners an ethical culture for long-term sustainability (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006;
Clark & Lattal, 1993; Hatcher, 2002; Paine, 1997; Sims, 2003).
Culture becomes lived through organizational members. Marsick and Watkins
(2003) maintain that learning organizations need to build a climate and culture where
employees learn from leaders and other key people who influence the learning of others,
and create an environment of expectations that shapes and supports desired results. This
was clearly evidenced in this study, where a great deal of valuable learning happened on
the job, in groups, and through conversations.
Trevino, Weaver, and Reynolds (2006) suggest that ethical culture influences
employees through formal and informal organizational structure and systems, in groups,
and conversations with peers. Almost all of the participants acknowledged that they
learned ethics in the workplace by observing leaders and other employees as role models,
and via artifacts in the workplace. In addition, the participants perceived that the values
the organization instilled, ethical leadership, trust, collegial support regarding ethical
matters, and a high standard placed on work ethics, helped to define the normative
behavior of the organization (Sims, 2003). Trevino, Brown, and Hartman (2003) suggest,
based on their field surveys, that executive ethical leadership increased employee
commitment and decreased unethical conduct in the workplace. This was clear from the
154
data in this study. For instance, Kim takes pride in the company and leadership and
stated,
I am happy I can be proud of the company I work for. I know the CEO on
down, ethics and environmental issues are key items for a lot of people. I
personally believe in integrity and letting yes’ be yes’s and no’s being no’s
and not a lot of in between.
Andy noted,
…the tone at the top is even more important than the policies and
procedures. I thin it is critical. I think people follow their leaders, they
follow their leaders actions…I think the tone sets very important bedrock
for the whole compliance program.
Tom suggested,
I think it largely is the culture and the belief that management actually is
making sure that when they find people doing things they shouldn’t be
doing, making sure it stops. That requires excellent ethics from the top
down and we’ve been fortunate, I think, in having very, very, good
leadership in the company.
Thomas (2008) maintains that leadership can either enhance the ethical culture or
dilute it depending on the characteristics of leadership. Brown et al. (2005) suggests that
leaders who demonstrate appropriate conduct through their personal actions,
interpersonal relationships, and communication with their followers according to the
norms of the organization promote an ethical culture. He also points out that research
shows that employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ ethical leadership was
155
determined by how comfortable the employees were when reporting problems and how
dedicated to and satisfied with the supervisor the employee was.
According to Trevino et al. (2006), norms, peer behavior, leadership, reward
systems, climate and culture become important in an organizational context to shape
attitudes and behaviors of employees that are embedded in the culture both symbolically
and physically. Weaver, Trevino, and Agle (2005) suggest that “ethical role-model
relationships require relatively close interaction with the role model, despite the
organization’s efforts to highlight an executive’s stance towards ethics” (p. 967).
Further, Bandura’s (1977) perspective of learning in an organization has its
origins in social learning theory. He suggests that learning can occur through observation
of other people’s behavior and its consequences. The social perspective implies that
individuals are social beings who together construct an understanding of what they have
around them, and learn from social interaction within social systems such as an
organization. Interaction and communication among individuals generates organizational
learning.
Implications for Practice
This study has several implications for the practice of HRD. This study confirms
and elucidates the increased responsibility HRD professionals are assuming in the
administration and implementation of ethics training and in the development of ethical
cultures. They are clearly primary advocates and resources for helping employees learn
ethics in an organization, and thus in building a more ethical organization.
The first implication for HRD professionals is the recognition that many
organizations are using online ethics and compliance training to educate employees on
156
the company’s ethics and compliance expectations. This, by itself, is not enough. The
findings of this study suggest that online ethics and compliance training served as (a) a
mechanism to convey the formal policies and procedures and behavioral expectations of
the company and (b) as a foundation on which employees can build and continue to use
as their learning becomes increasingly self-directed. Self-directed, informal and
incidental, and experiential learning were actually the primary ways employees learned
ethics in the workplace.
This knowledge of how employees learn ethics and compliance in the workplace is
significant to the practice of HRD. First, HRD must recognize the value of online training
without regarding it as the sole source of teaching employees about ethics and
compliance in the workplace. There is value for on-line training in organizations. It
provides formal training, allows for employee flexibility in under-going the training, 24-7
access to training materials, and employees can self-pace themselves. The sustained
benefit of the online ethics and compliance training in this company was that it became a
critical resource for the employees after they had completed the program. The employees
routinely revisited these on-line modules throughout the year as they needed them. This
has important design implications as these modules as these findings highlight how
important it is that these modules are designed in ways that facilitate this continual
revisiting and reflections. Another implication related to online training is that HRD
professionals must be actively involved with the ethics and compliance committee in the
organization to ensure the online materials are accurate and presented in interesting ways
to help engage employees in their learning.
157
With this knowledge of the importance that online training has in an
organization, HRD professionals can engage in specific learning activities that can help
HRD improve the quality and effectiveness of these types of programs such as
participating in learning more about how to create effective online training programs,
survey employees or organize a focus group to understand what they like and don’t like
about online learning and implement appropriate changes,
Further, this study confirmed that the primary ways the employees learned ethics
was by being self-directed and engaged in informal and incidental and experiential
learning. The organization’s systems and culture were vital influences that promoted
these types of learning. This is important for HRD professionals as they contribute in the
development of systems that support the employees’ informal and experiential learning at
work. HRD professionals must combine their expertise of training, organization
development, and career development to take that integrated and systemic approach to
ensure that ethics is integrated throughout functions related to the employee lifecycle.
This includes integrating ethics awareness and learning throughout employees’
orientation and on-boarding (which could include face-to-face programs, online ethics
and compliance training, and in-person visits with the Ethic and Compliance Officer as
well as with HR HRD. In addition, socialization can be accomplished by providing ample
ethics information in the work environment such as signage and encouraging leaders to
talk openly about ethics in formal and informal settings. Clearly a key take-away from
this study is that development of employees with regard to ethics is predominantly
accomplished by engaging employees in relating ethics behavior and ethics standards of
the company into their daily work. Further, performance reviews and succession planning
158
should, in part, be based on ethical behavior exhibited and documented when the
employee encountered ethically gray areas in their work. These outcomes should be
considered in the employee review process and as a key consideration for promotion.
HRD professionals can take an active role in developing systems such as these and
integrate them formally in the employee life cycle.
Lastly, HRD had a strong presence in this company, especially for employees
seeking advice or counseling regarding ethics at work. It is important that HRD
professionals realize that their advice and support influence employee behavior and
setting precedent within the organization. It is vital that HRD professionals continuously
reflect on their skills, knowledge, and subjectivities in order to stay current with ethics
policies, norms, and awareness of their own bias that may influence their work. HRD
professionals should also stay abreast of happenings in ethics in organizations by
attending meetings of professional associations, participating in community ethics round-
tables, taking ethics courses to understand ethics philosophy and applied ethics in a
business environment, and conversing and exchanging ideas about ethics with other HRD
professionals.
Implications and Recommendations for Theory and Research
There are three implications for theory in HRD. First this study addresses the gap
in the literature related to how employees learn ethics. Although there is a large
concentration of ethics research that explores ethical decision-making in various
situations in the workplace, descriptive concepts and frameworks of the
institutionalization of ethics process, and organizational performance linked to ethics, this
study adds to the literature by illuminating how employees learn ethics at work through
159
the lens of adult learning and organizational development theories. In addition, many of
the larger studies on ethics in organizations are quantitative in nature and report statistical
information, which lacks this kind of thick, rich descriptions of learning ethics at work.
Thus this study provided rich descriptions of how the participants learned and
experienced ethics at work.
Second, this study provides empirical evidence to enrich and extend the
frameworks used for instituting ethics in the workplace. Although the frameworks in the
literature are comprehensive and reflect many of the criteria that are needed to institute
ethics, these models are ambiguous or non-specific in addressing the learning component
and nebulously use the term training as the catch-all for the way individuals learn ethics
at work. This study surfaces other ways that individuals learn ethics at work by analyzing
their experiences and closely identifying them with adult learning theories and strategies.
This study provided concrete examples that illustrate how learning ethics took place in
the company. These examples included formal on-line ethics and compliance training as
the initial method to introduce the company’s expectations for ethical behavior, ethical
standards, and ethics compliance and regulations. Other informal and incidental ways of
learning ethics were evident in the participants seeking advice from respected peers, HR,
observing leadership, and artifacts in the work environment that promoted ethics at work.
Experiential learning was evident in that the participants’ experiences prompted them to
either recall ethics principles of the company and apply them in the situation and/or
prompted them to seek additional advice. Finally, self-directed learning was apparent in
the use of the online training as a resource once the participant had completed the formal
training.
160
Third, this study certainly highlights the importance of organizational culture and
its influence on employee behavior and learning ethics, effective organizational systems,
leadership, and collegial relationships that promote, support, and reinforce ethics in the
workplace. Trevino (2007) states, “Overall, HR and ethics managers must focus on how
cultural systems fit together or align in support of ethical conduct as a common goal” (p.
2).
Implications for Research in HRD
The findings of this study point to several recommendations for future research.
First, this study explored how employees learn ethics in the workplace. This study took
place in an organization that was awarded global honors as being an exemplary
organization with regard to ethics in their particular industry. Research is needed in other
companies or organizations with an exemplary reputation for ethics in order to enhance
the reliability of this study and develop best ethics practices based on what we have
learned about how employees learn ethics at work.
Second, out of the eleven employees, HRD professionals were not represented.
This was not intentional. The HRD professional and staff had other commitments during
the prescribed timeframe for interviews set by the organization. Research is needed to
include the perspectives of HRD professionals and those employees that help facilitate
employee learning of ethics. This is an important research area since HR and HRD
professionals are being asked to serve on their organization’s boards, expected to help
administer ethics and provide learning opportunities for employees in all different types
of contexts and with a diverse population of employees with respect to gender, ethnicity,
161
and ageism and further, be concerned with resources available with in the organization,
and implications of a global economy.
Third, this study was limited to interviews only as a means to collect data about
how employees learn ethics in the workplace. Additional research is needed using case
study methodology in both ethical organizations and ethically challenged organizations to
learn more about ethical or unethical cultures, ethical systems that work or don’t work,
observation of employee interactions in the workplace, review of documents, and
artifacts in the work environment.
Fourth, several of the participants were of Indian and Asian decent. Some of
their perspectives on ethics were described in a philosophical way connecting personal
morals and ethics with how they behave at work. More research is needed to understand
the cross-cultural differences and similarities of learning ethics at work and
understanding how employees transfer their personal ethics and values from their home
life to their work life. According to Bunch (2007) “…there is little recognition of
entrenched values, beliefs, and assumptions that prevent effective training” (p. 145).
Fifth, more research is needed in the field of HRD in order to generate more
knowledge and dialogue about ethics in the workplace in relationship to how HRD
professionals are presently handling the added responsibility for promoting ethics in the
workplace, and how HRD professionals are continuing to increase their knowledge-base
in supporting ethics in the workplace. This is important because of the dwindling
resources that some organizations are experiencing such as the lack of personnel to
handle all the issues that arise in an organization both from proactive and reactive
perspectives.
162
Further, this study has implications for research for understanding how HRD
programs in higher education, continuing education, and through professional
organizations prepare HRD graduates and practitioners to be competent to serve in
leadership roles leading and managing ethics in the workplace.
Limitations This study, like all research studies, has limitations. Creswell (2003) suggests
that it is difficult to understand all the potential weaknesses in the proposal phase of
research. Of course, one potential limitation (at least as perceived by some from the
positivistic traditions) is that this is a qualitative study based on a small pool of
purposefully sampled individuals. This method facilitated this inquiry about a specific
topic in depth and captured information-rich data (Patton, 2001; Merriam, 1999).
Although this method served the purpose of this study, more can be learned about how
employees learn ethics in the workplace by further qualitative studies with increased
and/or more diverse sampling.
The second limitation is that interviews were the predominant form of data
collection and, although attempts were made, other forms of data collection (observation,
document review, etc.) did not produce much usable data that would have helped to
potentially triangulate the findings. The third limitation was the inability to fully benefit
from member checks. Summaries of each interview based on the transcript should be sent
instead of a refined transcript. A better method of following-up after the transcripts have
been sent was needed. Future research must ensure that participants understand the
importance of member checks in providing reliable conclusions.
163
Finally, this study is limited by the extent to which my skills as an emerging
researcher affected the data collection and interpretation. While I took steps to ensure a
high quality study, that this was my first study certainly could have affected its quality.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented a summary of the research study, conclusions, and
implications for theory, research, and practice, and recommendations for future research
in the field of HRD. An interview guide was used in the process of interviewing eleven
employees, employed by a company that has been awarded ethics honors 2007, 2008, and
2009. Participants conveyed the different ways they believed they learned ethics at work.
Using Ruona’s (2005) four-stage model to analyze the data, four categories emerged
based on the numerous themes.
The findings resulted in three conclusions: (1) Self-directed learning is critical to
learning ethics at work informal and incidental, experiential learning, and self-directed
learning are the primary modes of learning ethics at work, (2) Organizational systems are
vital in supporting and solidifying learning ethics, especially as learning becomes more
self-directed, and (3) An organizational culture that actively promotes ethics clearly
fosters continued and enhance d learning around ethics. Employees learned ethics
through social and cultural influences, role modeling by senior leaders, directors, their
teams and managers. Peer conversations regarding ethical dilemmas and resolution
strategies were another way employees learned ethics experientially, informally and
incidentally. Further the organizational traits of the company promote to exemplary work
ethic, trust, respect, transparency, and honest communication. Employees learned ethics
by observing the ethical and unethical behavior in the workplace.
164
Implications to research and the practice of HRD include additional research
using an interpretive qualitative design and methodology to determine the reliability of
this study. Also, research is needed that includes a larger sample including HRD
professionals and staff in organizations that are recognized as being exemplary in ethics
and in organizations that display a lack of formal ethics programs and activities.
Further, the knowledge gleaned from this study will help elucidate strategies for creating,
implementing, and managing strategies for practice and encourage continuing education
for HRD professionals in the area of ethics in the workplace.
.
165
ENDNOTE
1 In this article we are asserting the critical role of human resource professionals
(HR, HRD, and OD), acknowledging that the lines of distinction between these
traditionally soloed functions continues to blur. In many organizations, HR is the
umbrella for the functions of HRM, HRD, and OD and the strategically proactive work of
these processes crosses over functionalized lines that used to exist between these three
professions (Ruona & Gibson, 2004). While throughout the rest of the article we will
focus primarily on the role of HRD professionals, we do so with the caveat that a
strategic approach to ethics in organizations demands a coordinated HRM/HRD/OD
system.
166
REFERENCES
Antonacopoulou, E. (2006). The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37, 455-473.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Baker, B. & Hunt, B. (2003). Factors impacting ethics behavior in hospitals. Journal of
Business Ethics, 1, 12. Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill handbook of leadership: Theory, research, &
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Beck, R. N. & Orr, J. B. (1970). Ethical Choice (eds.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Benson, A., Johnson, S., & Kuchinke, P. (2002). The use of technology in the digital
workplace: A framework for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 392-404.
Bierema, L. & Eraut, M. (2004). Workplace-focused learning: Perspective on counting
professional education and human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 52-68.
Blackner, E. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and
interpretation. Organizations Studies, 16, 1021-1046. Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon. Bowen, S. (2002). Elite executives in issues management: The role of ethical
paradigms in decision-making. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 270-283. Brenner, S. N. (1992). Ethics programs and their dimensions. Journal of Business
Ethics, 11, 391-399. Brockett, R. G. & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspective on
theory, research, and practice. In Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, Learning Adulthood, (3rd ed.).
167
Bunch, K. (2007). Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture. Human Resource Development Review. 6, 142.
Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz, A.K. (2000). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder
management (4th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz, A. K. (2006). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management (5th ed.) Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning: A sociological model. Management Learning, 36, 131-147. Cesh, M., Watkins, K., Marsick, V., & Volpe, M. (1998). Informal and incidental
learning in the workplace, proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, 1998. Charmez, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructionist methods. Handbook of qualitative research (2 ed.). p. 851-869. Edited by Norman. K Denizen, X. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charkraborty, S. K., & Chatterjee, S.R. (1999). Applied ethics in management: Towards
a new perspective. Springer: Berlin, Germany. Chiva, R. & Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational learning and organizational knowledge:
Towards the integration of two approaches. Management of Learning, 36, 49, 51-68.
Christensen, S. & Kohls, (2003). Ethical decision-making in times of crisis: A
framework for analysis. Business & Society, 42(3), 328-358. Clark, R. W. & Lattal, A. D. (1993). Workplace ethics: Winning the integrity revolution.
Latham, Maryland: Rowman-Littlefield. Clarkson, M. (1999). Principles of management. The Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management University of Toronto.
Retrieved September 2007 from Web site: http://www.mgmt.utoronto.ca/stake/Principles.htm.
Corporate Leadership Council (2003): Corporate ethics: The mission for HR: Imparting
guidelines and expectations. Corporate Leadership Council (2003), 5, 1-10. Costa, J. D. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
168
Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organizational development & change (7th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western. deMarris, K. (1998). Qualitative reflections. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. deMarris, K., & Lapan, S. (2004). Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dewy, J. (1936). John Dewey: Principles in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Doornbos, A. J., Bolhuis, S., & Robert-Jan Simmons, P. (2004). Modeling work-related learning on the basis of intentionality and development relatedness: A non-
educational perspective. Human Resource Development Review. 3, 250-273. Doran, M. (2005). HRD and business ethics. Retrieved from Web site:
http://www.ahrd.org/conference. Ethics and Compliance Officers Association (2006). Retrieved from Web site:
http://www.theecoa.org. Ethics Resource Center. National business ethics survey 2005: How employees view ethics in their organizations. Retrieved 2009 from Ethics Resource Center Web
site: http://www.erc.org. Ethisphere Magazine (2009). The world’s 100 most ethical companies. Retrieved from
Web site: http://ethisphere.com/wme.2008/. Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: ‘The Third Way’. Management learning.
35, 419-434. Eraut, M. (2001). Learning challenges for knowledge-based organizations. In J.
Stevens (ED.), Workplace learning in Europe, 20-34. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development.
Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge. Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Experiential learning in adult education: A comparative
framework. Adult Education Quarterly. 8.
169
Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(2), 123-141. Foote, M. & Ruona, W.E. A.(2008). Institutionalizing ethics: A synthesis and
framework and the implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 7, 292-309.
Fox, A. (2007). Corporate social responsibility pays off. HR Magazine, 8, 43-47. Garavan, T. (2007). A strategic perspective on human resource development. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 11-30. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(3), 136-148. Giacalone, R., & Thompson, K. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. The Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 5(3), 266-277. Gilley, W. & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance, and
change: An introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Persus Publishing.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glaser, B., & Straus, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory; Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL. Aldine. Heineman, B. (2007). Avoiding integrity land mines. Harvard Business Review, 4,
1- 8. Retrieved from Web site: www.hbrreprints.org. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (eds.). (1996). The Drucker foundation:
The leader of the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hinman, L. (2002). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory, (3rd ed.).
Wadsworth. Illeris, K. (2002). Three dimensions of learning. In Learning in Adulthood. Merriam,
Caffarella, & Baumgartner (2007). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 98-100. Jacobs, R. & Park, Y (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace
learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review 8, 133-150.
170
Jose, A., & Thibodeaux, M.S. (1999). Institutionalization of ethics: The perspective of managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 22(2), 133-143.
Kelly, C. (2009). David Kolb, the theory of experiential learning and ESL. Retrieve from
Web site: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Experiential/ Kim, K. (1993). Extending sociological theory to adult learning. In Adult Learning and
Development. Smith, C. & Pouchet, T. 64-86. Kirby, J. F. (2004). When good people behave badly-what will you do? Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to
andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as a source of learning and
development. Engle Cliffs: New Jersey. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea
of justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper. LeCompte, M. D. & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic. Lehmann, P. (1963). Ethics in a Christian context. New York: Harper & Row. Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance
& leadership success. Upper Saddle River: Wharton. Lewin, K. Z. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory
in Social Sciences. London: Social Science Paperbacks. Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E.G. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
K.D. Norman & S. L. Yvonna (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, p.166.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage Publications. Lockwood, N. (2005). Business ethics-codes of conduct/ethics programs. Society of human resource management. Retrieved September 2007 from SHRM Web
site www.shrm.org/reserach.
171
Logsdon, J. M. & Wood, D. J. (2002). Reputation as an emerging construct in the business and society field: An Introduction. Business and Society, 41(4), 365-
370. March, J. G. & Olson, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning
under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147-171. May, D. & Pauli, K. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision-making, Business Society, 41, 84-117. Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (1990, 1993). Informal and incidental learning in the
workplace. New York: Routledge.
Marsick, V. J., Volpe, M. & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Theory and practice of informal learning in the knowledge era. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 80- 98.
Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count. Aldershot, England: Growers Publishers.
Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25-23. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mayhew, E. (2006). Organizational change processes. In B.B. Jones & M. Brazell (Eds.). The NTL handbook of organizational development and change: Principles, practices, and perspectives, 104-120.
McDonald, K. (2000). Factors influencing ethical resolution efficacy: A model for
HRD practitioners. Managing Service Quality. 13(1), p. 6-9.
McLagan, P. (1987, 1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 1, p.60-65. McLean, G. N. (2001). Ethical dilemmas and the many hats of HRD. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12(3), 219-221. McLean, G. N. (2006). Rethinking adult learning in the workplace. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 416-423. Meisinger, S. (2007). HR’s role in creating an ethical culture, and how ethics officers can
work with HR. Retrieved from Web site: http://www.shrm.org/hrmahazine/articles,0306/0306cover.asp
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
172
Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. & Caffarella, R. & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3rd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. & Simpson, E. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1999), (10th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam- Webster. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation:
critical perspectives on theory and progress. In Learning in adulthood (3rd ed.). Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Milton-Smith, J. (1995). Ethics as excellence: A strategic management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(8), 683-693. Meyerson, D. & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: Integration of three different in
views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623-647. Nadler, L. & Nadler, Z. (1970). Developing human resources, (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. Nash, R. (2002). “Real world” ethics: Frameworks for educators and human service professionals. New York: Teachers College Press. Navern, F. (2004). Specific points for a director to examine in determining the
effectiveness of an ethics program. Retrieved from Ethics Resource Center Web site: http://www.erc.org.
Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications. Paine, L. S. (1997). Cases in leadership, ethics, and organizational integrity: A
strategic perspective. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Pearson, G. (1995). Integrity in organizations: An alternative business ethic. Berkshire,
England: McGraw-Hill.
173
Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 24-80.
Peters, F. H. (2005). Nichomachean ethics. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco;
Berrett-Koehler. Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy (4th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. RHR International and Directorship (2004). Retrieved 2009 from Web site:
http://www.accounting.com.
Ross, D. (1939). Foundations of ethics: The Gifford lectures. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Ruona, W.E.A. (2001). Systems theory as a foundation for human resource
development. In R.A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Foundations of Human Resource Development (pp. 114-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Ruona, W.E.A. & Gibson, S. (2004). The making of twenty-first-century HR: An
analysis of the convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 49-66.
Ruona, W. E. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R.A. Swanson & E.F. Holton
(Eds.). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. p. 223-226. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002). Retrieved from Ethics Resource Center Web site:
http://www.erc.org. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass. Schlesinger, L.A. (2003). “Hardwiring” an organization’s service performance. Managing service quality. 13(1), 6-9. Retrieved September 2007 from Web site: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/reserachregister. Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed,). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Scott, W. R. (1995). Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Smith, K. G. & Hitt, M. A. (Eds). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
174
SHRM/ERC (2003). Performance reviews often skip ethics, HR professionals say. Retrieved from Ethics Resource Center Web site: http://ethics.org/about
erc/press-releases.asp, 1-2. Sims, R. R. (2002). Teaching business for effective learning. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing. Sims, R. R. (2003). Ethics and corporate responsibility: Why giants fall. Westport: Greenwood Publishing. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-599. Society of Human Resource Management (2005). Business ethics series part I:
Business Ethics Overview. Retrieved October 2007 from Web site: http://www.shrm.org.
Spear, G. E. (1988). Beyond the organizing circumstance: A search for methodology
for the study of self-directed learning. In Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, Learning in Adulthood, 3rd ed.
Straus, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Taylor, E. W. (2001). Transformative learning theory: A neurobiological perspective of
the role of emotions and unconscious ways of knowing. In Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, Learning in Adulthood.
Thoms, J.C. (2008). Ethical integrity in leadership and organizational moral culture. Leadership, 4, 419 Thiroux, J. P. (2004). Ethics theory and practice (8th ed.). Pearson: Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ. Taft, S. & White, J. (2007). Ethics education: Using inductive reasoning to develop individual, group, and organizational and global perspectives. Journal of Management Education, 31, 614-631. Tichy, N. M. & McGill, A. R. (2003) (Eds.). The ethical challenge: How to lead with unyielding integrity. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass. Tichy, N. M., Frombrun, C. & Devanna, M. (1984). Strategic human resource
management. New York, NY.
175
Trevino, L. K. (2007). The key role of HR in organizational ethics. Retrieved September 2007 from Ethics Resource Center Web site: http://www.ethics.org/erc-publications/staff-articles.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G, & Reynolds, S. (2006). Behavioral ethics: A review.
Journal of management, 6, 951-990. Torraco, R. (2005).Human resource development transcends disciplinary boundaries. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 251-253. Tschudy, T. (2006). An OD map: The essence of organization development. In B.B.
Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change: principles, practices, and perspectives, 157-176. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Ulrich, D. & Brockbank, W. (2005). HR: The value proposition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Van Zant, K. M. (2005). Employee lifecycle model. Retrieved September 2007 from Web
site: [email protected]. Verschoor, C. (2004). Eight ethical traits defining a healthy ethical culture. Retrieved
from Walker Soultions Web site: http://www.walkerinfo.com/knowledge-center, 1-3.
Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. J. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s
learning culture: The dimension of learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 5, 132-151.
Weston, A. (2002). A practical companion to ethics (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Oxford University Press White, T. (1990). Ethics incorporated: How America’s corporations are institutionalizing moral values. Retrieved fromCenter for Business Ethics at
Loyola University Web site: http://www.ethics. Wilcox, T. (2006). Human resource development as an element of corporate
responsibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 4(2), 184-196. Williams, S. D., & Dewett, T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics: A review
and research agenda. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 12, 109- 120.
Wolcott, H. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
176
Worden, S. (2003). The role of integrity as a mediator in strategic leadership: A recipe for reputational capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 31-44.
177
APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM
I, ____________________________, agree to participate in a research study titled How Employees Learn Ethics in the Workplace conducted by Marianne F. Foote from the Department of Life Long Learning, Administration, and Policy at the University of Georgia (770-814-9512) under the direction of my advisor, Dr. Wendy Ruona, Department of Life Long Learning, Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia (706-542-2214). I understand that I can ask to have all of the information about me returned to me, removed from the research records, or destroyed without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled. I understand the reason for this study is to explore, from my perspective, how I learn ethics in the workplace. I understand I will be participating in a digital audio-taped 60 minute interview on-site which occur in a private room setting and one 30 minute follow-up interview via e-mail or phone. I understand that my anonymity will be preserved; during and after the study takes place and all records will be securely stored by the researcher and destroyed December 2009. Potential Risks: I understand that any whistle-blowing or reports of unethical conduct comments could potentially create a harmful situation for participant (e.g. something that needs to be reported and could be subject of investigation by my organization). I understand that I am agreeing by my signature on this form to take part in this research project and understand that I will receive a signed copy of this CONSENT FORM for my records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of Researcher: Marianne F. Foote Contact Information: Phone#: 770-814-9512 cell# 678-641-0743 e-mail: [email protected] Signature:_____________________________ Date:____________________ Name of Participant: Contact Information: Phone#: cell # e-mail:_____ ____________ Signature: Date:_ ____ ____________
178
Please sign both copies. Keep one and return one to Marianne F. Foote (researcher). Additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant should be addressed to The Chairperson, Institutional Review Board, University of Georgia, 612 Boyd Graduate Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-7411. Telephone (706) 542-3199; E-Mail address [email protected]
179
APPENDIX B
HOW EMPLOYEES LEARN ETHICS IN THE WORKPLACE
Interview Guide (Used For all Participants)
Research Question: How do employees learn ethics in the workplace? Questions that inform study:
(1) In what ways do employees learn ethics in the workplace? (2) How do employees use what they have learned about ethics?
__________________________________________________________________ Q1: How long have you worked here?
• Tell me about what your role at this company and the types of responsibilities that you assume in the organization?
• This company has been highly regarded as an exemplary organization for their demonstration of ethics and corporate citizenship. What does it mean to you to be part of a highly regarded ethical organization?
• There has been much discussion about ethical cultures and how organizations are institutionalizing ethics. What are some of the ways this company promotes ethics in the workplace?
Q2: As you know, learning is almost always a process, how would you describe
how employees learn ethics in the organization?
• How are ethics related programs and activities administered in the organization?
• How do employees learn about ethical standards and codes of conduct here?
I would like to transition now into more personal scenarios regarding what you have learned about ethics and situations in the workplace where you have applied what you have learned. But first, tell me…. Q3: Tell me about the meaningful programs or activities that you have participated in
to understand company ethics.
180
• What was the primary lesson/or lessons you learned from your experience?
• Describe any changes in you, personally, as a result of this experience.
• Tell me about a time when you were able to use what you have learned as a result of your experience?
• Explain why you chose to address the situation in this manner.
• Tell me about another situation where what you learned about ethics helped you decide what your actions or decisions should be.
• What advice did you seek in the company to help you in this situation? How were you able to able to use what you have learned and the resources at the company?
• How did your personal beliefs in ethical behavior enter into your decision?
• Let’s explore another situation that you experienced in the workplace that called upon your knowledge of ethics.
• Describe how the previous situation may or may have not, helped you in particular situation.
• Use similar probes used in Q2. Q4: You are probably aware that there are many ways that employees can learn.
Think about a time where you learned about ethics without attending a required program or activity about ethics here.
• Describe specifically how you felt when you realized learning took place
with regard to ethics and your behavior.
• Figuratively speaking how did learning about ethics and the application of ethics get from point A to B?
Q5: Has anyone in the organization ever mentored you or coached you regarding
ethics at this company?
• Tell me a time when others helped you understand ethics here… such as a as your supervisor or manager, peer, HR or anyone else.
Q6: Tell me about the “shoulds” in respect to ethical behavior in the workplace.
181
• What resources are available to you to help you learn what the organization’s expectations are?
• Tell me about the types of things or people who help support an ethical culture and promote ethics in the workplace.
• Describe the systems and structures that are in place at SA to promote an ethical culture.
Q7: How you would advise others to learn ethics in the workplace?
• Why did you choose these particular ways to advise others to learn about ethics?
• What are the other ways to learn ethics you did not recommend? Why?
182
APPENDIX C
STATEMENT OF SUBJECTIVITY
First, I believe trust is an essential component in human relationships and partner
ships and is developed over time. Trust is defined as “assured reliance on the character,
ability, strength, or truth of someone or something” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary,
1999, p. 1269). In my adult life, trust has become one of my most serious beliefs. I have
been married for twenty-eight years to the same person whom I consider my best friend.
Trust and faith in each other have been the foundations in our relationship. I mention this
because I believe in an organizational context that trust is a critical factor in building
relationships and working together similar to a good marriage. This assumption about
trust in an organization could influence my study in the questions I pose to the
participant’s and in follow-up questions. Further, this assumption could come across in
my non-verbal communication, interview style, tone of voice, or the words I select.
I believe, in part, my interest in ethics in the workplace has stemmed from by
personal beliefs. Although my work experiences were favorable regarding experiencing
good relationships built on trust, there were always a few individuals in the organization
that held negative attitudes and were untrustworthy. These people were hard to work with
because of the lack of trust. Questions I would have regarding these types of people were
whether they would get their part of the job done and do it without acting in an unethical
manner. These same people had a tendency to misrepresent or lie to frame their work. My
tolerance for people who cannot be trusted is limited. As a researcher studying the
183
process of institutionalizing ethics in the workplace, I must be cognizant of my
assumptions about trust so that I am not perceived by the participant’s to be judgmental
or assume there is more meaning to the participant’s disclosures.
Secondly, with regard to individuals in organizations, an assumption I hold is that
an individual is honest and trustworthy until he/she proves differently. I believe the same
sentiment holds true for organizations. Although the organization I have selected is
known for their attention to ethical practices in the workplace, I l would like to make the
point that organizations with leaders proven to be dishonest; it is difficult for those who
are affiliated with the person or organization to give unconditional trust.
The rash of corporate scandals in the United States has diminished society’s
confidence and respect for the lack of integrity exhibited by corporate leadership. This
has resulted in the publics’ general sense of distrust for corporations. Consequently, the
observed unethical behavior of leaders has placed emphasis on implementation of ethical
controls and the push to institutionalize ethics in organizations. As a researcher, I will be
cognizant of the dangers in projecting my personal feelings of distrust for corporate
America or belief that all companies have hidden agendas and focus on the employee as
the learner in the organization.
Thirdly, coming from a lower middle class background, I have always valued
education and work ethic. Earning my way through undergraduate school taught me to
work hard and opportunities would present themselves. This value has caused me to
instill in my son to not be afraid to go above and beyond what is expected. Work ethic
can also be related to working at achieving amiable relationships, and working to achieve
an organization’s mission and goals.
184
Finally, my interest in organizational ethics and how employees learn ethics has
developed recently through my exposure to ethics in my coursework at the University of
Georgia. In my previous positions as an administrator and program director, ethics was
not a topic that was talked about, encouraged, or discussed as an organizational value or
expectation. The topic of ethics, for me at least, was an assumption that organizations
inherently would value ethics.
During the time I was in the workforce there were companies and people in the
United States that were being singled out for unethical wrong doing. Observing corporate
scandal through the news media over the past twenty years have made me very conscious
about ethics in the workplace and how an employee learns ethics at work and how is
learning ethics supported by the organization.
Since the aim of this study was to understand how employees learn ethics in the
workplace, I believe that I will be less likely to pass judgment on individual values and
focus on describing how these employees perceive they learn ethics at work.
185
APPENDIX D
CODING SCHEME
Ethics in the Workplace
10000 Institutionalization of Ethics Indicators 10100 Leadership Presence 10110 Role-Modeling 10200 Support Systems 10210 Hotline, Compliance Officer, HR 10300 Employee Accountability 10310 Reviews include Ethics Component 10320 Mandatory Ethics Training 10400 External Influences 10410 Global Ethics 11000 Philosophical Perspectives 11100 Individual Reflections on Personal Ethical Behavior at Work 11200 Transfer of Morals/Values/Ethics from Home to Workplace 12000 How Employees Learn Ethics at Work 12100 Formal Learning 12110 On-line 12120 In-Person Training 12130 Informal Learning 12131 Mentoring/Coaching 12132 Signage/Postings in Work Environment 12140 Incidental Learning 12141 Discussions/Debates 12142 Observation 12150 Experiential Learning 12142 Learned ethics as an outcome of situation/experience 12160 Transformational Learning 12120 Employees’ Preference to Learning Ethics at Work 13000 Organizational Culture 13100 Work Ethic & Ethical Behavior